Class __£i_/21. Book COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT CambriDge l^tetorical ^eriejs EDITED BY G. W. PROTHERO, LiTT.D. FELLOW OF king's COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE AND PROFESSOR OF HISTORY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA mr- s- J^J>rgmia. owners. In Virginia, these landowners possessed entire power in State and Church, tempered to a very slight extent by the presence of a royal governor. At the first glance, few positions in life seemed more desirable than that of the successful Virginia planter. In company with the Maryland planters, he possessed a monopoly of the British tobacco markets. Ex- cellent tobacco was produced in North Carolina; but, at that time, it was scarcely known outside the tobacco colonies. This was due to the fact that the most practicable route from the North Carolina tobacco fields to the seaboard was through Virginia. The tobacco growers of the latter colony imposed a small duty on all tobacco imported into Virginia and thus ex- cluded North Carolina tobacco from the markets of the world. The whole life of Virginia was dominated by the exigencies of tobacco culture. Large plantations, slave labour, poor and wasteful cultivation, a single crop with its attendant fluctua- tions, all appear to have been the direct result of tobacco growing. There was one commercial town in the tobacco colonies — Baltimore in Maryland. But Baltimore belonged to the valley of the Susquehanna and not to that of the Potomac — it was to most intents and purposes a Pennsylvania seaport. lO The Colonists, 1760-65. [Chap. The great arms of Chesapeake Bay — known as rivers — the James, the York, the Potomac and the rest, were navigable for long distances from the bay. The sea-going vessels loaded within a short distance of the tobacco fields — oftentimes within sight of the planter's verandah. Thus it came about that there was no business transacted in Virginia. The planter consigned his year's crop to his correspondent in London, sending also a long list of goods to be purchased there and sent out in the tobacco ships a year later. The temptation to order more goods than the proceeds of the tobacco would pay for was very great, and it was difficult, too, to calculate closely the precise amount that the tobacco would realize. At all events, the planter soon found himself in debt to the factor, and before long the proceeds of one year's crop would be used to pay the debts already contracted. So the process went on, the planter living in apparent comfort, yet always on the edge of bank- ruptcy. Of course, here and there, good managers could be found — like George Washington; — but it seems to have re- quired great skill and forbearance to make even a large planta- tion yield any net return. The Virginia planters were men of large proportions — managing affairs on a large scale and taking liberal views of everything, except when the interests of their own class were menaced; then they became as hard and narrow as the typical Yankee. There is something fascinating in the descriptions of the old Virginia houses and house-life which have been left by travellers of the olden time. Yet we know from the same travellers that, even in Virginia's best days, one might sit down to dinner in one of their splendid rooms — the table set with fine plate and the appetite sharpened with costly wines, when at the same time the window, out of which one looked, might lack several panes of glass, the door be without a knob, the shutters hanging by one hinge, and the whole mansion in a condition of partial ruin. This was due to the fact that negro slaves and free white mechanics seem never I •] Social Conditions. 1 1 to have been able to thrive together. The glass for these planters' houses had been brought from England, and all the finished woodwork from the North, while the workman who put them together had been imported for that purpose. The blood and sinew of Virginia was in the middle class of whites, those owning small estates and a few slaves. They were in some cases ignorant, and generally lacked the polish of the great planters. They were of the best British stock, however, and capable of development. To this class belonged Patrick Henry and John Marshall, while Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and John Randolph represented the richer and more aristocratic class. The only other product which determined the whole life of a people was rice. It was produced mainly in South Carolina. Grown in malarial regions, its Planters of cultivation was fatal to the whites, and only less south Caro- so to the blacks. The rice planters, unlike their Virginia congeners, could not live on their plantations, except for a brief period in each year. They passed most of their time in the principal town of the colony, Charleston — which enjoyed the almost unique position of being a capital, a business metrop- olis, and a summer resort all in one. The rice planters formed a well-knit aristocracy. The handling of the crop was performed by the merchants of Charleston, men of means and enterprise. Many of the men of both these classes had been educated in England or in the North. In their hands centred all power, for government was centralized in South Carolina as it was in no other colony. They formed a true oligarchy. Born and bred to habits of command, they enjoyed an influence far beyond what their numerical importance or their wealth would seem to justify. South Carolina was prosperous in 1 760 — forty years before the profitable cultivation of cotton began. This prosperity rested to a great extent on the use of slave labour, which seems to have been considered essential to the well- 12 The Colonists, 1760-65. [Chap. being of South Carolina in 1760, as it was deemed to be one hundred years later. Slavery existed in all the colonies before the Revolution. In the North it was everywhere dying out because it was un- profitable, except on the shores of Narragansett Bay and on the banks of the Hudson River. In Boston and New Negro Slavery: North York City the possession of a young negro was ^" °"* ■ regarded as undesirable. There does not seem to have been any widespread moral sentiment against slavery, but the institution had no place in the economic environment of the northern colonists. South of Mason and Dixon's line this was not true. The following definition of the word slaves taken from the early Virginia statutes is interesting for many reasons. It reads as follows : "All persons who have been imported into the colony and who were not Christians in their native country — except Turks and Moors in amity with his Majesty, and those who can prove their being free in England, or in any other Christian country — shall be accounted and be slaves, shall be bought and sold, notwithstanding their conversion to Christianity after their importation." From this it can be seen that slavery was regarded by the Virginians as justifiable because the slaves be- siavery in ^^^.g importation were not Christians, so that Virginia. ^ ' the knowledge of Christianity given them in Virginia might be considered as an equivalent for the use of their bodies during life. This was the ground upon which slavery was justified for many years. One of the best means of determining the extent to which slavery has eaten into the body politic is to observe the stringency of the laws designed to prevent the amalgamation of the two races and to prevent insurrection. That slavery was a firmly established institution in Virginia becomes evident when one reads in the statutes of the Old Dominion that a white man marrying a I.] Negro Slavery. 13 negress shall be banished and the clergyman who performed the marriage service shall be subject to a heavy fine. A negro found abroad after nine o'clock at night might be dismembered, and no penalty beset the slave-owner whose slave died during or in consequence of punishment. In Virginia, there were many white bondservants working and living with the negro slaves. This probably mitigated to some extent the lot of the slave. Moreover the cultivation of tobacco was healthful and easy; and, taking everything into consideration, the treatment of the blacks, while harsh in comparison with that in New York, seems to have been mild when compared with their usage by the planters of South Carolina. In the latter colony the slaves were largely men and women of African birth, carried to Charleston Slavery m and other southern seaports from the western South Caro- coast of Africa by the northern slave-traders. '"^' They were, therefore, more savage and uncivilized than were the negroes of the tobacco colonies, who were mostly descendants of slaves brought over in the preceding century. The South Carolina negroes may have required harsher treatment to keep them in subjection. Moreover the conditions of labour in the rice colonies were far more severe than farther north. Even the negroes could stand the pestilential rice swamps for a few years only. It became profitable, therefore, to work them to the best advantage during their years of greatest vigour. This naturally tended to increase the severity of their treatment. Another thing which made in the same direction was the fact that the owner was absent from his plantation during the greater part of the year. Thus instead of the patriarchal form which slavery assumed in Virginia, in South Carolina it was simply a business matter. The slaves and the plantation were handed over to an enterprising overseer; and the best overseer was he who secured the most advantageous returns. Finally, the fact that the blacks outnumbered the whites necessarily led to most stringent laws. 14 The Colonists, 1760-65. [Chap. Slave insurrections occurred from time to time; and a for- midable one in 1740 led to a revision of the slave laws of the colony. A few points gathered from this revised code will demonstrate the extent to which slavery dominated South Carolina. In the first place the greatest care was taken to prevent slaves from combining against the whites and securing fire-arms. No one, not even a slave's master, could permit a slave to have a gun in his possession after sundown; and all slaves found on the high road at any time could be stopped and arrested unless they could show a "ticket" from the master permitting them to leave the plantation. The legislators were especially fearful lest the blacks congregating at Charleston on some holiday or some Saturday afternoon or Sunday should massacre the whites in a body. To prevent this, no master could give his slave a "ticket" to visit Charleston at such times under penalty of a heavy fine. In the second place, the judicial procedure in the case of a negro slave was peculiar. Jury trials were held only when a negro claimed his freedom. All other cases in which negroes were concerned were tried by a court at which one justice with two freeholders in capital cases, and a justice with one freeholder in less important cases, formed a quorum. In the latter class of trials, the justice gave the decision with the consent of the freeholder. In capital cases the trial was to be held within six days of the apprehension of the alleged negro offender, and execution followed immediately on the giving the sentence. This was substantially the system in vogue until 1865. Among the capital crimes in 1760 were running away, wounding a white person, burning or destroying rice, corn, grain, pitch, etc. To limit, if possible, the practice of escaping to the Spanish settlements in Florida, considerable rewards were offered for the apprehension of negroes south of the Savannah River — the rewards in 1740 being ^50 if alive or _;^io for the scalp. The ordinary reward for the scalp of a runaway negro was ^\. I.] White Servants and Convicts. 15 A very considerable portion of the labour of the colonies was provided by the employment of white persons \fq^-^ bound to service for a term of years. Some of vants and these servants came to America of their own ac- '=°"^'<=*^- cord and sold their services to secure the means to provide for the expenses of the transfer from the old world to the new. These were called " Redemptioners " or "Free Willers," and were a most respectable and desirable class of immigrants. They were to be found most largely in Pennsylvania. At the termination of their terms of service they were given a start in life by the colony and the master, the colony furnishing land, and the master agricultural implements. Another class of bondservants were not so desirable, namely the " indented " servants drawn from the criminal classes of Great Britain. The Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 provided, among other things, that no subject should be sent to foreign prisons, or to parts beyond the seas, except those who in open court should request to be transported. Early in the reign of George I, Parliament provided that persons sentenced to whipping and branding might have their sentences commuted to seven years' service in the colonies; those liable to capital punishment might satisfy the requirements of justice by fourteen years' service; in either case, return to Britain before the expiration of the term of service was punishable with death. The con- tractors, who paid the expenses of the transportation of the convicts, were entitled to the services of such persons for the required terms and might assign their rights to others. Two other acts were passed "for the more speedy and ef- fectual transportation of criminals," and the practice was continued till 1770 at least. For reasons not now clearly ascertainable most of these convicts were sent to Maryland and Virginia — indeed, those colonies seem to have been re- garded almost in the light of penal settlements. The people of Virginia and Maryland strenuously objected to this influx i6 TJie Colonists, 1760-65. [Chap. of criminals; and sought to keep them out by laws imposing head money and long quarantines. But these laws, as well as those designed to prevent the importation of negro slaves, were annulled or vetoed by the king. The great mass of the immigrants who came over in the first half of the eighteenth century were either "Free Willers" or, more often, persons who paid their own expenses. It will be interesting to note some of the reasons which induced these immigrants to settle in one colony rather than in another. The chief attractions seem to have been (i) the enjoyment of civil rights, (2) freedom to exercise one's own Religion and religion, and (3) the prospect of becoming an owner of land. By this time the best land near the sea-coast was already occupied. But there were still vast tracts in the interior, either on or near navigable streams, to be had for the asking. In Virginia, in order to secure fifty acres of land for himself and for each adult member of his family, the immigrant was only obliged to present himself at the proper office with the necessary papers. In some cases, grants of land were made to a prospective immigrant before his departure from Europe. Oftentimes, with a grant of land, there would be given a further inducement in the shape of an exemption from taxation for a certain number of years. Religious considerations, however, had more weight than any other one thing in determining the direction of an immi- grant's course. New England was still Puritan in religion and in the conduct of daily life, and, as a matter of fact, remained so for a half century longer. But as the Puritan movement had long ceased in England, there were no emigrants of that persuasion. Consequently the religious appearance of New England, during the eighteenth century, deterred foreigners from seeking its shores. There was, in- deed, a smaller proportional emigration to the Eastern Colo- nies than to any other section. As has been said, the land was I.] Religious Disabilities. 17 already fully occupied. The New Englanders themselves became emigrants later on, exchanging the rocky and sandy soil of the interior and the coast for the fertile valleys of the Mohawk and the Ohio and the coasts of the Great Lakes. The Roman Catholic, who desired to better his condition by emigration to the western world, found only one colony, Pennsylvania, where he was accorded full civil and religious liberty. Rhode Island, usually so liberal in religious matters, had on her statute book a law c^hoiks™^" excluding the Roman Catholics from the exer- cise of the franchise. A law of New York, passed in 1700 and not repealed until after the Revolution, provided that, after the first day of November of that year, a Roman Catholic priest found within the limits of the colony should be " ad- judged to suffer perpetual imprisonment; and if any person, being so sentenced, and actually imprisoned, shall break prison and make his escape, and be afterward retaken, he shall suffer such pains of death, penalties, and forfeitures as in cases of felony." It is, perhaps, needless to say, that in all the other colonies, excepting Pennsylvania, Roman Catholics were de- prived of the right to vote until after the Revolution. Maryland, which had been settled under Roman Catholic auspices, was now in the hands of the Protestants. There were many Roman Catholics in Maryland, descendants of the early settlers. They were treated with a harshness likely to deter others of that faith from entering the colony. They were excluded from office, disfranchised, obliged to pay a double land tax, and to con- tribute toward the support of the Established Church. In Virginia, however, we find the severest laws against the Roman Catholic laymen, probably because the Virginians feared an incursion from Maryland. In the Old Dominion a Roman Catholic could not vote or bear witness in any case whatever in a court of law, not even against his own negro slave, nor possess fire-arms of any description. In view of these C. A. 2 1 8 The Colonists, 1760-65. [Chap. facts, it is not surprising that nearly all the colonists were Protestants. To the Protestant Dissenter all the colonies were open. In Virginia and in Maryland the Church of Eng- Di^serTters"* ^^^^ ^^^ ^y ^^'^ already established; but in the latter colony, where the Dissenters were very numerous, this meant little more than the payment each year, towards the "Established" parson's salary, of a small amount of the poorest tobacco obtainable. In Virginia, on the contrary, the Church establishment was in the hands of the planting aristocracy. It was one of the bulwarks of the social fabric of the Old Dominion, and, therefore, was guarded with particular solicitude. Towards the middle of the century the Protestant Dissenters suddenly acquired increased strength and became very active. This aroused the fears and jealousy of the aristocracy to such an extent, that very stringent and harsh laws were passed, designed to check the progress of Dissent. Notwithstanding this discouragement, the Dissenters poured into the back regions of the colony, while Dissent gained rapidly in strength in the older settled portions. In 1763, Patrick Henry, whose mother was a Presbyterian, stated in a court of law, without arousing ill-feeling except among the clergy, that the only justification for the existence of the Established Church was its value as a police organization. Before dismissing the subject of religious qualifications and disqualifications, it will be well, perhaps, to de- of'Eng:?and.'^'^ scribe more fully the position occupied by the Established Church. It had its representatives in nearly all, if not all the colonies, but it was established by law in only two — Maryland and Virginia. Curiously enough, the Church in those colonies was in a worse condition than in many others. This was due to the fact that the venerable Society for the Propagation of the Gospel (according to the rites of the Church of England) in Foreign Parts, provided admirable I.] The Established Ch7irch. 19 men for its mission stations in New England and in the South, where the religious competition was keen, but left Virginia and Maryland to the care of the metropolitan, the Bishop of London, who was charged with their supervision. The bishop was represented by an officer termed a Commissary. But the Commissaries had great difficulties to contend with. In Mary- land there was constant friction between the Church and the State, and in Virginia the vestries, controlled by the planters, had obtained entire control of the patronage of the Church, and refused to hire a parson for more than a year at a time. They thus held the clergy in a state of subjection. Of course there were many admirable clergymen in both these colonies, but in general it may be stated that in Virginia the clergy condoned the vices of their patrons, and in Maryland some of them surpassed their parishioners in all that was bad, so that the phrase "a Maryland parson" became a term of reproach. In these circumstances, it seemed desirable to have an American bishop in direct charge of the clergy of the Church of England in the colonies. It happened, , , ° rr ' An American however, that in England the bishop enjoyed Bishop pro- considerable civil power. It was stated over ^°^^ and over again that any bishop who might be appointed for America would have only such civil power as the laws of each colony might give him. The Dissenters, forming the great mass of the people, felt that, although this might be the case in the beginning, in the end the bishop would surely gain a great deal of power. They enlisted the sympathies of their fellow Dissenters in England and in this way prevented any such appointment from being made. Nor was the case much better with the American clergy. They, with few exceptions, did not want a bishop. Some of them even refused to have the honour thrust upon them, A Maryland clergyman, who finally set out for England to obtain consecration, was met at the point of embarkation by a writ of ne exeat I'egno which prevented his 2 — 2 20 The Colonists, 1760-65. [Chap. leaving the colony. This contest, however, kept alive a spirit of opposition to England, which some students regard as among the most potent causes of the Revolution; but very likely the matter has been exaggerated. Later on, the Revolu- tion, by doing away with the authority of English law in the United States, at once removed all objections to the appoint- ment of a bishop, and since that time the Episcopal Church has shown great vitality. The third great inducement to a Protestant immigrant from „ ^ ,. without the dominions of the British monarch Naturaliza- tion of foreign was the enjoyment of full civil rights within the rotestants. limits of the English colonies. This was a wide departure from the practice of other nations, and from earlier English usage. The historical importance of this first step toward breaking down the doctrine of inalienable allegiance can hardly be overestimated. It is important also to under- stand the position of the British Parliament at this period in connection with the subsequent impressment controversy between the United States and Great Britain. The British Parliament in 1740 passed an Act (13 Geo. II, cap. 7) con- ferring all civil rights within the colonies — though not in Great Britain — on foreign Protestants who had resided there for seven years. In addition, many of the colonies passed laws conferring rights of citizenship within the colony after a much shorter period of residence, in some cases requiring only one year. The policy outlined in these acts has been followed in the United States ever since. The religious qualification disappeared at the Revolution, and the only exception to the enjoyment of full civil rights is the provision in the Constitution that the President of the United States must be native born. The period of residence has been changed twice. It is now five years in the general law. Many bands of immigrants, to return to colonial times, were naturalized by special colonial acts before their departure from their old homes. I.] Natui'alisation and Education. 21 The eighteenth century is remarkable for the rise of the legal profession in the colonies as well as in England. At the time now under review, profl^ssion^' Blackstone was writing his Conunentaries, and Mansfield and Camden occupied the two foremost places on the bench. In America, even in New England, where the clergy had long held an undisputed sway, the lawyers were fast becoming the leaders of political thought. James Otis and John Adams in Massachusetts, Stephen Hopkins and William Ellery in Rhode Island, Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth in Connecticut, wielded a power equalled only by that of the Puritan divines of a century before. Robert R. Livingston and John Jay of New York, with Andrew Hamilton and Thomas McKean of Pennsylvania, were among the founders of the renowned bars of those colonies. In Vir- ginia, Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson, with the Pendletons and Randolphs, formed a brilliant group, while South Carolina furnished several able lawyers like the Rutledges and the Pinckneys. These lawyers were all learned in the Common Law, and many of them were well versed in the Constitutional History of England. They gave a legal and constitutional cast to the earlier phases of the Revolution. Later, in combination with business men and men of affairs, they elaborated in the most durable and efficient forms the constitutions of the several states, and, later still,- the constitution of the nation. The medical profession was just starting into vigorous life; and the seat of the earliest medical school was in Philadelphia. A small and active set of men had also made some progress in the direction of physical science, and the names of Benjamin Franklin and David Rittenhouse are even now held in high esteem by scientific men. Philadelphia was also the seat of the beginnings of university education in America, for there was founded the first school having as its object scientific and not theological investigation. 22 The Colonists, 1760-65. [Chap. There were then in the colonies some half-dozen institu- tions of learning, bearing the designations of Coifeges. college or university : Harvard, Yale, King's (now Columbia), New Jersey (better known as- Prince- ton), Pennsylvania, and William and Mary. With the excep- tion of the University of Pennsylvania, they all owed their origin to the desire of the communities in which they were placed for a learned ministry of some particular faith. Thus Harvard, the oldest of them, was founded in 1636 to supply clergymen of the Independent persuasion, while Yale was founded at the beginning of the next century to furnish Puritan divines of a slightly different dye ; King's was in the hands of the Episcopalians, Princeton was a Presbyterian seminary, and Commissary Blair had secured the endowment for William and Mary to provide Virginia with an efficient clergy of the Established Church. The University of Pennsylvania was due largely to Franklin, to whom all religions were much alike. Founded in 1 749 on a liberal basis, it proved very successful and grew rapidly. In 1756, there were four hundred students on its list. None of these institutions were much above the grade of high schools ; still they produced some good scholars of the older type and kept alive a love of learning. Students came to them from all parts of the British Empire, attracted, in many cases, by the soundness of their theology in some one direction. On the other hand, many young men went to England for an education. This was notably the case as to the sons of the rice planters of South Carolina, and, to a lesser extent, of the tobacco growers of Virginia. The system of free public schools had its rise in New England in the middle of the seventeenth century. Education!^ ^^^ "^^7 ^^ regarded as an offspring of the English Reformation. In most places, provision was made for the teaching of reading, writing, and elementary mathematics ; but the larger towns were required to provide suf- !•] Secondary Education. 23 ficient instruction to fit students for college. At the beginning of the Revolution, Rhode Island, alone of the New England colonies, had no free public school system. The Dutch had provided educational facilities for their children in New Nether- land. After the English conquest, however, constant disputes had arisen as to the maintenance of these schools at the public expense, as they were intimately connected with the religious establishments of the conquered Dutch. This was unfavour- able to the extension, and even to the existence, of a free school system; and, as late as 1760, there does not appear to have been any provision for general pubhc instruction in New York. In New Jersey and Pennsylvania, the Quakers and Presby- terians were strenuous in their efforts to establish a system of free public education. The "log colleges," maintained by the latter sect in the remoter parts of Pennsylvania, served a most useful purpose, and may be regarded as the prototype of the " district school " of a later day. Nowhere was greater effort made to educate the immigrants than in Pennsylvania; and nowhere does education seem to have been more highly prized. The legislature of Maryland had provided in 1723 for the establishment in every county of a school where grammar, writing, and mathematics should be taught by a member of the Established Church. Something was done towards carrying this policy into effect ; but interest in the matter was short- lived, and the religious tone given to the schools in a colony, where the Dissenters were very numerous, accounts, in part at least, for the failure of the scheme. There were a few schools supported by general taxation in the colony ; but they were feeble in every respect and exerted little influence. The con- ditions of Hfe in Virginia made it difficult to provide educational faciHties for the whites. Efforts had been made, from time to time, to remedy the defect of a total lack of schools, but with slight success. WilHam and Mary College resembled in many respects an English public school of the old days. Most of the 24 The Colonists, 1760-65. [Chap. more prosperous planters employed private teachers — generally clergymen — and these, in combination with the college, fur- nished the young Virginians of the higher class with an excellent education. The love of reading seems to have been widespread in the Old Dominion; and the colony con- tained in 1760 a goodly number of men, who were fair classical scholars and were very familiar with English history and constitutional precedents. There does not seem to have been an educational institution of any kind in North Carolina in 1760. The legislature of that colony had made provision for the founding of a seminary of learning; but the act had been vetoed by the king. It should be stated, however, that two schools were founded in North Carolina within the next ten years. There was no system of general education in South Carolina, and the mass of the white population was without any means of securing knowledge. On the other hand, the richer planters were well educated. Taking the colonies all through, and bearing in mind the large number of recent immi- grants, it may be said that the mass of the whites possessed the rudiments of learning, and that a very large proportion of them were well educated. For learning itself the colonists had little sympathy, although they recognized the desirability of knowl- edge for the power it conferred on its possessor; this, indeed, was their method of estimating the value of nearly everything. There was little intercourse between the people of the several colonies in 1760, and almost none, in fact, colonial com- between the people of the North and the South, munication. rpj^^ roads, cvcn in the older settled regions, were few in number and very poor in quality — for the most part being mere "dirt-roads," almost impassable during a portion of the year. Throughout the colonies, settlement was restricted mainly to places within easy distance of navigable water. Nearly all the inter-colonial communication was by water, and, at best, was very difificult, not to say dangerous. The passage !•] Inter-colonial Communication. 25 which is now made in one night by the large steamboats which ply on Long Island Sound then required a week's time and often more. In England, the era of coaching was beginning ; but on the western side of the Atlantic, colonial roads and lack of business warranted no such regular and expensive accommo- dation — except for short distances in the vicinity of the larger towns. It then cost as much to send a letter from New York to Boston as it cost to send a letter from New York to London, and one-third as much to send a letter sixty miles inland from New York as to either of the cities just mentioned. Nor was the rate low enough to encourage frequent communication, as it cost a dollar to send one ounce of mail matter from New York to Boston ; the same service is now performed for one- fiftieth of that sum — not taking into account the difference in the value of money. In 1766, the rates for inter-colonial water communication were reduced to one- third of the 1760 rate. Owing mainly to the great expense attending the transportation of commodities and the spread of " news," the conditions of colonial life, away from the larger towns, were not unlike those which prevailed in England in the Middle Ages. The greatest differences, perhaps, were to be found in a change in ideals and in the possibihties of existence. Most colonists realized that there was a better mode of Hfe than that which they were obliged to lead. They knew also that the way to that better mode of ide^s. ' living — so far, at least, as they were concerned — lay in the possession of wealth. Wealth also conferred power on its possessor. In common with many other persons they confounded money with wealth, and in this way the acquisition of money became the one great all-absorbing task of the colonists. In England, as well as in Western Europe, the old social systems remained. In those countries a man ordinarily lived and died a member of the class into which he had been born — an agricultural labourer or a mechanic seldom attained 26 The Colonists, 1760-65. [Chap. any higher grade. In the colonies the class distinctions, which rested on the written and unwritten laws of society, were fast disappearing. As the second half of the eighteenth century is passed in review, the attentive student will observe that in the colonies each year saw some social barrier swept away — one might almost say that each month saw something done toward the democratization of colonial society. It thus came about that the possession of wealth on the western side of the Atlantic Ocean was equivalent to a patent of nobility in Great Britain. Few travellers understood the meaning of the intense struggle for wealth which all recognized as dominating American life. The people seemed to be struggling for money for its own sake, so to speak. In reality, they were intent on its acquisition for the power and social position its pos- session would confer on the possessor and his family. The ignorant immigrant, in this regard, evinced more intelligence than the cultured traveller. In his old home in Great Britain or Ireland, he led an easy careless existence. In the new world he rose early and worked the day through with a feverish anxiety as if conscious that every tree he felled on his little clearing in the wilderness placed him nearer his goal. In all this, however, the mainspring of his action was a most commendable desire to seize the opportunity which was suddenly placed before his eyes to better his condition. In thus raising his own level, the colonist felt that he was working toward the bettering of the condition of all the colonists and indeed of the human race. He seemed to be conscious of the grandeur of the undertaking, and "appealed to the world" in justification of his course. The "English colonies" on the continent comprised, in 1760, thirteen governments. They may be Governments described as belonging to one of two forms, royal provinces governed directly by the Crown, and colonies in which the right to exercise many of the func- I.] Constitutioital Position of the Colonists. 27 tions of the Crown had been delegated to persons called proprietaries or to the voters of the colony as in the cases of Connecticut and Rhode Island. The English settlers, to whichever colony they went, carried with them to their new homes "as much of the common law of England as was applicable to their condition." The qualification, contained in this latter phrase, made the constitutional relations of the colonists to the Crown and to Parliament very vague and uncertain, and different as to the inhabitants of the several colonies, or of the same colony at different stages in its develop- ment. The title of the king of England to the soil was based on the discovery of John Cabot, so far as other Christian mon- archs were concerned. According to English legal theories, the king was lord of the soil as territory conquered from the Indians. Acting on this theory, successive monarchs had granted a large part of North America to single proprietors, to groups of proprietors, and to corporations. Most of these grants had in one way or another returned to the Crown, except as to rights which had become "vested." Some of them had been confirmed or regranted under other con- ditions. In 1774, Jefferson in his Summary View stated a different theory as to the ownership of the soil. He said, in substance, that the soil of the colonies belonged to the com- munities by whose exertions it had been converted to the uses of man, that is to the colonists themselves. The British government had no doubts as to the validity of the legal theory. In 1763 the king, by proclamation, established the water- parting between the rivers flowing into the Atlantic and those discharging into the Mississippi as the western boundary of the seaboard colonies. This seriously limited the extent of many colonies; but his right so to limit them does not seem to have been questioned at that time. In the period of the Revolution, however, the colonists treated the Proclamation of 1763 as of no legal force. 28 The Colonists, 1760-65. [Chap. The king held the same position toward the colonists, „, „ with the exception of the inhabitants of New The Crown ^ and the York, that he held toward the people of Great CO onis s. Britain. They were all subjects of the English Crown. The colony of New York, however, had been settled originally by the Dutch and had been conquered by the English about a century before the time of which we are now speaking. Over it as a conquered colony, and not as one which had been originally settled by Englishmen under license from the Crown, the king wielded authority which he did not possess in the other colonies. For years after the conquest. New York had no representative assembly; but this had been remedied and the government of New York had been assimilated to that of the other royal provinces. The king could not tax English sub- jects without their consent, nor could he authorize others so to do. Legislative bodies had been established, therefore, in all the colonies, save New York, soon after their settlement. The earliest of these v/as the Virginia General Assembly, which met for the first time in 16 19. The king's prerogative ex- tended to the colonies, and the judges were appointed by him or by his agents. He was also the head of the military establishment, and where there was a Church establishment he was the head of the Church as well. The royal rights were oftentimes vigorously enforced. The best example of this, perhaps, was the enforcement of the title of the Crown to a share in the catch of whales and other "royal fish" on the American coast. In the earlier time, the kings, beginning, with James I, „ ,. , had denied to Parliament any share in the Parliament -' and the direction of colonial affairs. But during the CO cms s. Puritan regime, the Long Parliament had taken the control of colonial affairs into its hands; after the Restoration, Parliament continued to regulate colonial trade without any protest from the Crown. The Revolution of I.] Representative Institutions. 29 1688-89, by making Parliament supreme in the State, com- pletely altered the existing relations between Parliament and the colonial legislative bodies. But before 1761 the colonists had, tacitly at least, acknowledged the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament. They had not objected to the regulation of colonial trade by act of Parliament. They had accepted without remark the Post Office Act of Queen Anne, which really levied a direct tax on the colonists; and no protest had been raised against the act establishing the New Style, which affected the daily life of every colonist. No direct issue had been raised as to the power of Parliament to levy taxes. It will be convenient to describe in this place, however, the difference which existed between colonial representative insti- tutions and those of Great Britain, for in that difference lay the key to the constitutional opposition to the acts of Parliament in the years 1 761-17 74. The phrase "no taxation without representation" was fa- miliar to both sections of the British people; r r 7 Representa- but it conveyed very different meanings to the tive Govern- people of Great Britain and to those of the "^"*' English colonies. The members of the British House of Commons were elected in 1760 in accordance with a system which was in itself the growth of centuries of British history. The House of Commons may be said to have fairly repre- sented the several classes of the community — the landowners and their tenants and labourers, the merchants and their clerks and other employees, the manufacturers and their work- men, the Church, and the legal profession. Although its members were chosen on a basis both of apportionment and franchise, which would not now be tolerated in Great Britain, they were amenable to public opinion and may be regarded as giving the consent of the people of Great Britain to the levying of taxes. In the colonies, representation was apportioned on a territorial basis, an attempt being made in a few colonies 30 The Colonists, 1760-65 [Chap. roughly to adjust it to population. The franchise was ordi- narily exercised by all adult male whites possessing a moderate amount of property. Plural voting was seldom permitted and representatives were paid for their services. The representatives chosen were ordinarily men living in the district in which they were elected. A colonist in using the phrase "no taxation without representation" meant "no tax- ation except by vote of a legislative body in which a person known to me and in whose election I have taken part has a seat." An Englishman, using the same phrase, had in his mind an idea which can be expressed in the sentence : " no taxation except by vote of the House of Commons." The vast majority of Englishmen did not vote for a member of Parliament, but all Englishmen were resentation.^^" ^^^^ to be virtually represented. It was easy to extend the theory and to argue that the colonists were virtually represented as well; and in a measure they were, because merchants interested in the American trade sat in the House of Commons or voted for members of that body. Lord Mansfield stated the theory in a clear manner in his learned speech against the repeal of the Stamp Act. He said : " There can be no doubt but that the inhabitants of the colonies are as much represented in Parliament as the greatest part of the people of England are, among nine millions of whom, there are eight who have no vote in electing members to Parliament. A member of Parliament chosen for any borough, represents not only the constituents and inhabitants of that particular place, but he represents the City of London, and all the Commons of the land, and the inhabitants of all the colonies and dominions of Great Britain. " American writers contended, that, granting the soundness of the general theory of virtual representation, there was still a difference in the position of Englishmen having no vote and that of the colonists. Members of Parliament, they argued, were singly and collec- I.] The Imperial Protectio7i Policy. 3 1 tively responsible both physically and morally to the English people and to English public opinion, while it was impossible for the colonists to appeal either to their fears or to their inter- ests. There can be no doubt of the legal soundness of Lord Mansfield's argument. Parliament was the supreme legisla- tive body of the Empire under the existing constitution. As it refused to part with any portion of its power, the only remedy was revolution. Before the middle of the eighteenth century. Parliament exercised little authority over the colonies ex- cept in the matter of trade regulations. This tiorflcts^*^^ system was designed to promote the interests of all parts of the Empire, those of some in one way, those of others in other ways. The leading acts establishing this Imperial protection policy were mainly those of Charles II and the 7 and 8 William III, cap. 22. These provided that no goods should be imported into or exported out of the colonies except in vessels built within the British dominions and owned and navigated by subjects of the British Crown. It is especially important to observe that this system was intended to confine the trade of the British Empire to British subjects. The colonists shared in this monopoly; and under its stimulus, the colonial ship-building and ship-owning interests flourished greatly. It was further intended to give the profits which should arise from the handling of the staple products of the Empire to British merchants. This was accomplished by pro- viding that certain commodities, which were enumerated in several acts, should be carried to Great Britain alone. These " enumerated goods " included, among others, tobacco, cotton, indigo, copper ore, and furs, all of them products of the "English Colonies" on the continent of North America. To partly compensate the colonists for the loss of the direct trade of continental Europe, the tobacco growers of Virginia and Maryland were substantially given a monopoly of the tobacco 32 The Colonists, 1760-65. [chap. trade of the Empire. On such of these "enumerated" com- modities as were liable to duty on importation into Great Britain, a drawback was allowed at the time of exportation. When it was found that the cost of re-handling in England by increasing the price prevented the sale, as in the case of rice destined for Mediterranean ports, such commodity was excluded from the general operation of the acts. In this way, South Carolina rice destined for ports north of Cape Finisterre had to be first landed in Great Britain, but rice destined for ports south of Cape Finisterre might be carried direct from South Carolina. Frequently bounties and premiums were provided, as in the case of naval stores, hemp, masts, and spars. Among the acts designed to protect and stimulate the industries of the English West India Islands was one laying a prohibitory duty on sugar and molasses imported into the continental colonies from any foreign port. This act, had it been enforced, would haVe inflicted great hardships on the people of New England. But it was systematically evaded by the colonial merchants in collusion with the customs authorities. It is impossible to state whether the net result of this system, taken as a whole, was in favour of Great Britain or of the colonies. As a matter of fact, the colonies were very prosperous under it. This may have been due to the fact that the laws which might have borne heavily on the colonists were practically obsolete. As to the restrictions on manufacturing,, there can be no doubt that they inflicted damage on colonial interests. The idea of the English authors of this part of the system seems to have been to keep the British iron mills on Colonial busy and at the same time to stimulate the produc- manufactur- ^jqj^ q[ crude iron in the colonies. To carry out ing. this policy, pig and bar iron were admitted free of duty to British ports, and the manufacture of iron in the colonies beyond the stage of bar-iron was absolutely prohibited. The attempt was also made to restrict the colonial manufacture of I.] The Supremacy of Parliament. 33 hats to the actual needs of the colonists and thus prevent com- petition with the English hat- makers. In conclusion, it should be stated that a careful examination of the whole subject does not bear out the assertion, which has often been made, that Parliament was actuated by a selfish desire to promote the interests of subjects of the Crown living in Britain at the cost of other subjects living outside of the realm. On the contrary, Parliament, at least in the earlier time, attempted to legislate in the general interest of all. It would be an interesting inquiry whether the present colonial system of Great Britain, in which many of the colonies hedge themselves about with protective tariffs, is really productive of greater proportional benefit to the people of the whole Empire fhan was the colonial system of a century and a quarter ago. Parliament exercised authority which, constitutionally speaking, was unlimited. No man or body of Lim-t t' men reviewed its acts. It was supreme in the on Colonial State. The colonial assemblies exercised limited overnmen s. functions, and their acts were subject to review. The powers of the colonial legislatures were restrained by written documents — the charters of the chartered and proprietary colonies, and the commissions and instructions of the governors of the royal provinces. All these instruments emanated from the Crown. Furthermore, an appeal lay from the decision of the highest court of every colony to the king in Council. The laws of all the colonies were liable to be reviewed and annulled by the same authority, whenever contrary to act of Parliament. Moreover, they must be conformable to the general customs and laws of England " so far as the circumstances of the place will admit." The issue in each case was determined by the king in Council. In the majority of cases, the laws passed by the colonial legislatures were regularly sent to England and might be disallowed at any time within three years. The king frequently exercised his power of veto as to colonial legislation C. A. 3 34 The Colonists, 1760-65. [Chap. after the royal veto had become obsolete in Great Britain. In this way the colonists became accustomed to government resting immediately on written constitutions, to the exercise of the veto power, and to the interpretation of their laws and the overruling of the decisions of their courts by a judicial body in England from whose judgments there was no appeal. In these facts can be discerned the sources of several of the most important features of the American system of government, as elaborated in the constitutions of the United States and of the several States. The governor of a royal province was the personal repre- sentative of the king, and as such he exercised The ° Provincial such portions of the king's prerogative as he was Governor. authorized to exercise by his instructions. For example, he summoned, prorogued, and dissolved assemblies at his pleasure. Although the laws of England, which were in force at the time of the founding of a colony, were held to be in force there, subsequent statutes of Parliament did not extend to the colonies unless it was so stated in the act. It thus happened that in many ways the prerogative was more exten- sive as to the colonies than it was with regard to England. For instance, the Septennial Act did not extend to America, and all attempts on the part of the legislatures of the royal provinces to regulate the holding of elections and the duration of assemblies and the frequency of sessions had been defeated by the use of the veto power. In the chartered colonies, on the contrary, annual elections were the rule. The royal governor exercised all executive power, except as he was limited in his instructions or by The Colonial colouial acts which had not been disallowed by Legislatures. _ ■' the king. He was the head of the colonial judiciary, appointing the judges and himself acting as Chief Justice of the highest colonial court. He was also commander- in-chief of the colonial forces and appointed the more important I.] Colonial Governments. 35 officers. In the chartered colonies, the governor sometimes possessed little executive power, or, indeed, power of any kind. In Rhode Island he had no more authority than any other member of the Board of Assistants over whose deliberations he presided. The representative bodies throughout the colonies had acquired considerable strength through the exercise of the right to levy and apportion the taxes. In Virginia, for example, the assembly appointed the treasurer, who at this time was the Speaker of the popular branch of the legislature. Throughout the colonies, the governors, judges, and other royal officials, outside of the customs service, were dependent upon the assemblies for the payment of their stipends, which were frequently withheld, or voted as the price of some concession on the part of the government. The efficacy of this means of coercing a governor may be ascertained from the fact that the proprietary of Pennsylvania was obliged to put successive governors of that colony under bonds to veto legislation con- trary to the proprietary's interest. Notwithstanding the great authority possessed by the king and Parliament, the people of the several colonies substantially governed themselves before 1760. It was well said that "Grenville lost America because he read the despatches, which none of his predecessors had done." Occasionally the Bishop of London or some especially aggrieved colonist would bring a case before the Privy Council or the Board of Trade and thus arouse the interest of a few persons in the administration of colonial affairs. But such interest was short-lived, and the colonists were soon left to settle their affairs in their own way. Had it been otherwise, it is improbable that the colonies of Connecticut and Rhode Island would have been permitted long to continue in their position of partial independence. The charters of these two colonies erected the voters of those dominions into " corporations upon the place." They elected their governors and enacted laws without any reference 3—2 36 The Colonists, 1760-65. [Chap. to the home government. So liberal were these charters that they survived the shock of the Revolution and remained the constitutions of the States of Connecticut and tered^coion'ies. Rhode Island until 18 18 and 1842 respectively. There was no representative of the king in either colony, except one or two customs ofificers. The charters of these colonies were substantially codifications of the govern- ment which existed in Massachusetts at the time they were granted (1662 and 1663). The colony charter, under which Massachusetts had been founded, was vacated in 1684, and was not regranted after the Revolution of 1688. Instead, an attempt was made to establish there a government which may be described as a compromise between the royal and charter forms. By the Massachusetts charter of 1691, the governor was to be appointed by the king and to have in general the same powers as the royal governors. On the other hand, provision was made for a House of Representa- tives to be elected on a low property franchise. The Council, which advised the governor and formed an upper house of the legislature, instead of being appointed by the king, as in the royal provinces, was chosen by the House of Representatives, subject to the approval of the governor. The salaries of the governor and of the judges, who were appointed by him, were voted by the Representatives. There was great possibility of friction between the representatives of the king and of the people. The government had been in operation but a short time when disputes began, and they continued with scarcely a break until 1774, when the government under the charter was sus- pended by act of Parliament. Political warfare breeds politi- cians, and the political leaders of Massachusetts, like Samuel Adams and John Hancock, may be regarded as the first Ameri- can politicians. As a matter of fact, government was so decen- tralized in New England that the form of the general government was of less importance there than in any of the other colonies. I.] Local Government. yj The New England town-system was the continuation of the old English parish-system before the days of closed vestries, while it was yet a popular England town- institution. Many changes had been made, of ^y''*^"'- course, to adapt the institutions of Elizabethan England to the needs of communities living in a wilderness. Strong as was the town organization, it was not older than the central governments, and it cannot be said that the State was founded on the towns. The two developed side by side, the Congregational or Inde- pendent method of Church organization, which gave nearly all power in religious matters to the local religious bodies, strongly influencing the civil organization in the same direction. The town became the administrative unit and absorbed a large part of the business of the colony. Affairs were discussed and con- cluded at a general meeting of all the voters in the town. Certain persons were selected to carry on the town's business according to instructions given them by the voters in town meeting. These selectmen were the agents of the town and had such authority as the voters of the town, to whom they were directly responsible, might give them and no more. The New Englanders, therefore, had a direct personal interest in the management of their affairs, and acquired skill in the trans- action of political and public business. Where government was so decentralized it was difficult to bring about an adminis- trative chaos. The dissolution of the legislative body or the abdication of a governor were regarded as of little moment. It may also be observed that whenever the inhabitants of any con- siderable number of these towns were opposed to any measure of the central government they could inaugurate a very formid- able opposition to the central government without performing any act which could be regarded as against the law. Outside of New England the local administration was organized on a less popular basis. It becomes more and more aristocratic and centralized as one proceeds southward, until, 38 The Colonists, 1760-65. [Chap. in South Carolina, local administration is merged in the general administration of the colony. In Virginia, for Local govern- •' ° ' ment in the instance, the functions of local government were °"* ■ exercised through the vestries of the parishes and through the county courts. The vestries were close corporations in 1760, and the members of the county courts were appointed by the central government. The parishes and the counties were often coterminous, and the members of the two governing boards were frequently the same persons. Thus the leading men in each county exercised nearly all local power. It happened that at the time of the Revolution the leaders of Virginian politics and society were the chiefs of the oppo- sition to the British government; and, in this way, the local institutions of Virginia proved to be a source of strength, rather than of weakness, to the American cause. The people of the several sections of the English-American Plans of colonies were wide apart in their institutional Union- and social arrangements in 1760, and their material interests were also different. He would have been a bold prophet who would have foretold that in six years they would voluntarily send delegates to an inter-colonial Congress. Many schemes of union had been proposed. Most of them had not gone beyond the works of their proposers, and only two need be even mentioned. In 1754 delegates from many colonies met at Albany in response to the invitation of the British Board of Trade. They assembled to discuss and arrange means for concerted action against the French, and to adopt some common policy towards the Indians. .The outcome of their deliberations was the Albany Plan of Union. This provided for the appointment of a President-General by the king, and for the election of a Grand Council by the colonial legislatures. The scheme was rejected by the English government, and by the colonial legislatures, on exactly op- posite grounds — the one because it was too democratic, the I.] Plans of Union. 39 other because it seemed to increase the power of the Crown. From these reasons Dr Franklin, its principal author, con- cluded that it must have been a good plan. Another scheme proposed during the great war was the work of the Lords of Trade, and was known as the Halifax Plan, from the name of the chairman of the board. This provided for a military co-opera- tion between the governments of the several colonies. It was further suggested that each colony's proportion of the necessary charges should be ascertained by commissioners, to be appointed by the councils and assemblies of the colonies. But nothing came of this scheme, and in 1760 there was no bond of union between the people of the different colonies save the British blood which flowed in the veins of the dominant race and the common subordination of all the colonies to the Crown and to Parliament. That union for which philosophers and jurists had schemed was to be suddenly brought about in a most unex- pected manner by the passage of the Stamp Act in 1765. The colonists had evinced a determined spirit of in- dependence from the outset. In the seventeenth century several colonies had refused obedience ences between to the representatives of the Crown, and one ^"tain and the colonies. colony had paid no attention to the decisions of the courts at Westminster. The first part of the eighteenth century was a period of almost incessant bickering and petty strife between the representatives of the British government on the one hand and the popular branches of the colonial legislatures on the other hand. These disputes were usually confined to local politics; they never assumed the form of a combination between two or more colonies to resist the authority of Great Britain. During the French and Indian War these altercations threatened to assume a more serious aspect „. ^ Change in owing to the attempts of British officials to colonial enforce obedience to acts of Parliament as to ^° "^^" 40 The Colonists, 1760-65. [Chap. i. billeting of soldiers and, also, to the supersession of colonial military officers by those holding commissions direct from the Crown. That these disputes led to no graver results must be attributed to the laissez-faitr administrative policy of Sir Robert Walpole and his immediate successors. Had that policy been maintained after 1760, there is little reason to believe that the conquest of Canada and the existence of the Navigation Laws and Acts of Trade would have led to rebellion. Lord Mahon was undoubtedly right in saying that, had not some new cause of complaint arisen, the colonial agents, even in his day, might still have been debating at Whitehall. It was not so to be. The wise counsels of the earlier time were thrown to the winds. The British government, by enforcing the Acts of Trade and by levying taxes on the colonies by acts of Parliament, compelled the colonists to combine in defence of what they considered to be their rights, and thus prepared the way to revolution and independence. CHAPTER II. CONSTITUTIONAL OPPOSITION, I76O-74. The campaigns of the Seven Years' War in Europe and in America were sustained at great cost by the British government and the American colonists. T.^^ "^^ ° policy begun. The Imperial public debt, if such an expression may be permitted, increased by leaps and bounds. Seeking to augment the revenue by all reasonable means, the British government examined the administration of the Acts of Trade, and discovered, to its amazement, that those acts in some colonies were not enforced at all. It also seemed plain that many New England merchants, unmindful of their duty to their country, had supplied the French posts on the seaboard with provisions. Orders were at once issued to enforce the Acts of Trade, and a stimulus was thus given to the customs officers in Massachusetts, who seem to have been very corrupt, to endeavour to conceal their past misconduct by a display of unwonted energy. Evasion of the Acts of Trade prevailed to such an extent and was practised so openly that it seems a misnomer to term it smuggling. No one had ever thought much about the constitutionality of the acts because, with the collusion of 41 42 Constitutional Opposition, 1760-74. [Chap. the customs ofificers, it had been easy to evade them. The enforcement of the acts at once showed the difficulty of carrying out laws opposed by a whole people. Arming the customs ofificers with special search-warrants sistance °i76i^' provcd to be of little use. Such warrants con- tained the name of the informer, and were re- turnable. In this way the informer became known to the community, and in a time of excitement he and other in- formers were almost certain to be intimidated into silence. The search-warrant also contained a description of the place where the un-customed goods were deposited, and covered only the seizure of merchandise in the designated place. When an officer, supplied with one of these warrants, reached the designated place, it might well happen that the last barrel of un-customed sugar was being rolled through the. door of a warehouse on the opposite side of the street, or even through a door into a store beside the one he was authorized to search. Under these circumstances, the customs officials were practically powerless. They had recourse to g enera l search-warrants or Writs of Assistance, as they were usually termed. These were first issued, in this connection, by Governor Shirley of Massachusetts, who certainly had no legal power to issue them. The ofificers, therefore, were directed to apply to the Superior Court for new writs. This they did in 1 761. James Otis, the king's Advocate, resigned his office to argue against their issuance. Hutchinson, the historian of Massachusetts, who was then Chief-Justice, asserts that Otis took this course from pique because his father had not been appointed to the chief-justiceship. There is absolutely no proof of this. Hutchinson had the misfortune to be on bad terms with both James Otis and Samuel Adams, but there is no more reason for attributing evil motives to them than to him. It is no doubt true that Otis rejoiced in this, and in other oppor- tunities, to heap unpopularity on a personal enemy. Otis on IT.] Writs of Assistance, \y6i. 43 this occasion made an epoch-marking speecb, which is con- veniently regarded as the first act in the American Revolution. Unfortunately it has come down to us only in the fragmentary form of notes taken by John Adams, then a young Boston lawyer. Conscious that the law was against him, Otis based his argument on the broader ground of the rights of the colonists as Englishmen. He declared that J^^^es otis's ° argument. the use of writs of assistance was an act of tyranny, similar to the abuse of power which had "cost one king of England his head, another his throne." He concluded with the assertion, based on a reading of Coke and the other earlier law writers, that Parliament could not legalize the exercise of an act of tyranny such as must be the every-day consequence of the use of writs of assistance, for "an act of Parliament against the constitution is void." This idea was a favourite one with Otis. He elaborated it a few years later (1764) in his essay entitled The Rights of the Colonies Asse?'ted and Proved. In that paper he uses these words : " Parliament cannot make two and two, five Parliaments are in all cases to declare what is for the good of the whole; but it is not the declaration of Parliament that makes it so. There must be in every instance a higher authority, God. Should an act of Parliament be against any of His natural laws, which are immutably true, their declaration would be contrary to eternal ti-uth, equity, and justice, and consequently void." The writs of assistance were granted by the Court some months later, and were declared legal by Parliament in one of the Townshend Acts (1767). Otis's argument, however, even in the imperfect form in which it was reported, penetrated ere long to the hearts of the American people. Such writs are forbidden in every State constitution of the revolutionary period, and in one of the first amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that 44 Constitutional Opposition, 1760-74. [Chap. Otis was wrong and that Hutchinson and the other judges were legally right; that Parliament had the legal and constitutional right to provide for the issuance of such writs; and that the only remedy then in the hands of the colonists was revolu- tion. This dispute had hardly subsided when Otis involved him- ^. self in another as the champion of the constitu- Dispute as to '- the "control tional power of the House of Representatives of the purse. against the encroachments of the executive. Toward the end of 1761, Governor Bernard of Massachusetts, acting with the advice of his Council, and for what seems to have been a good reason, expended a small sum of money in fitting out the provincial armed sloop for the protection of vessels on the northern coasts against French privateers. The money so expended was then in the colonial treasury, but had not been appropriated to this purpose by vote of the House of Representatives. This action, unimportant in itself, was re- garded as a most dangerous precedent, as it was argued that if the Governor could legally arm one soldier or sailor he could arm one thousand or ten thousand. Led by Otis, the House remonstrated against the act as depriving them of " their most darling privilege, the right of originating all taxes." The Governor, aware of the impropriety of his act, was not disposed to stand by it, and the matter would have stopped at that point had not Otis, in the remonstrance voted by the House, made the further statement " that it would be of little consequence to the people 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." To this Bernard objected most strenuously, and the phrase was erased'by order of the House. In justification of his action, Otis wrote the earliest political pamphlet of the Revolution, entitled A Vindication of tlie House of Repre- sentatives. The political theories adduced in this tract may II.] Otis' s Political Pamphlets. 45 be regarded as the first statement of the theory of government maintained by the leaders in that movement. Otis' s argument was, to a great extent, a mere restatement of the ground taken by Locke in his Essay on Government. Among other things, Otis declared can'^th^'ry."" that "God made all men naturally equal" and that "ideas of pre-eminence are acquired." Two years later (1764), in his long essay, which has been already mentioned, he asserted that men are naturally equal and that government is founded on the necessities of our nature. Government is described as being in the nature of a thing given in trust for the good of mankind, eachsocietybeingat liberty to establish such a form as might seem to it best. If a government were un- faithful to its trust, it should be opposed. Otis admitted that it was difficult to arrange for the carrying of the laws of Nature into effect. He regarded the British constitution as the most perfect arrangement for this purpose that had yet been devised. As to the rights of the colonists he declared that as men they have the same rights as other men, " the common children of the same Creator with their brethren in Great Britain. Nature has placed all such in a state of equality and perfect freedom." "Every British subject, born on the con- tinent of America, is, by the laws of God and Nature, by the Common Law, and by Act of Parliament entitled to all the natural, inherent, and inseparable rights of our fellow subjects in Great Britain." Among these rights was one by which a man could not be deprived of his property without his consent in person or by representative. He also asserted that there was no ground for a distinction between external and internal taxa- tion. Otis' s premises pointed in one direction and in one direction alone — revolution. But so great was his regard for the British constitution that he could not bring himself to state the logical conclusion from his argument, and ended his essay by asserting that the colonists were only entitled to subordinate 46 Constitutional Opposition, 1760-74. [Chap. legislatures and that Parliament was supreme over all. It was thus given to another lawyer to state the American political theory in a more complete form. Otis made his speech against writs of assistance in 1761. p . Some two years later, Patrick Henry of Virginia Henry's Stated the Opinions of a large portion of the ^^^^"^ ■ people of Virginia as well as of the other col- onies as to the exercise of the veto power by the king. The case is always cited as the "Parson's Cause," because it arose from the attempt of a Virginia clergyman to obtain money due to him under the law of Virginia as it stood and not as it would have been had the king allowed an act of the Virginia legislat- ure to become law. Into the technicalities or, indeed, into the moralities of the case, it is not necessary to enter here. The Court had decided that the clergyman could recover, and the question before the jury was as to the amount. Patrick Henry was at that time an industrious young lawyer. He was of good British stock, partly English but more especially Scottish. He had received a good education for a man of his time and place; he had studied Greek, could read Latin with some ease, and was very familiar with the history and theory of the British constitution. This was his first appearance in any important cause calling for the display of oratory. Brushing aside the technicalities of the case, he denied the power of the king to veto an act of the Virginia Legislature passed for the good of the people of Virginia. "Government," he asserted, " was a conditional compact between the king, stipulating protection on the one hand, and the people, stipulating obedi- ence and support on the other." A violation of these covenants by either party discharged the other party from its obligations. The act in question was a good act and its disallowance by the king an instance of misrule and neglect which made it necessary that the people of Virginia should provide for their own safety. The king from being a father of his people had " degenerated II.] The Parson's Cause. 47 into a tyrant and forfeited all right to his subjects' obedience." He told the jurors that, under the ruling of the Court, they must award damages, but that an award of one farthing would satisfy the law. They awarded one penny. In these two cases, Otis and Henry, between them, had cast a serious shadow on the authority of Parliament and on the prerogatives of the king. Nevertheless these were isolated outbreaks. They were the result, in each case, of peculiar local conditions. They attracted little attention in the colonies at the time, and, what was extraordinary, the English government gave way in the Virginia case. There seems every reason to believe that at the beginning of 1764 no more loyal and faithful subjects could be found than the American colonists. In November, 1765, they were in open rebellion from the Penobscot to the Altamaha. This change of sentiment was caused wholly by an attempt to tax them by acts passed by the Parliament of Great Britain. The position in which the British government found itself at the close of the war was a most difficult one. Conspiracy This much must be conceded at the outset. The of Pontiac, public debt had increased, and there seemed to ^^ ^' be no end to the expenses to be ^incurred in America. The newly-conquered territory required a large body of troops to hold the hostile population in subjection. The Indians on the frontier, under the leadership of an able chieftain, Pontiac, and inspired by designing, or, perhaps, merely ill-informed French traders, burst into open revolt. The only way to establish the English supremacy was to crush them. The colonists on their part evinced little disposition to aid the authorities with colo- nial troops. They were still more unwilling to contribute to the support of the soldiers of the regular army, sent over for what the English government declared to be their protection. They felt able to take care of themselves, and doubted the necessity for much of the protection it was proposed to give them. 48 Constitutional Opposition, 1760-74. [Chap. Besides, the colonists living in the different sections were very jealous of one another. The northern colonists felt that the southerners had not done their share in the late war. They were in no haste to hurry to their defence, nor were they willing to contribute money to fortify the southern frontiers. British expediency, or better, perhaps, political wisdom, demanded that such sectional feelings should be encouraged. Further- more, it would be much better to gain what might be gained from the prosperity of the colonists in an indirect way, even at some cost in men and money, than, by an exercise of power, to unite the northern and southern colonies in opposition to the British government. This latter, however, was precisely what that government did. The Pitt-Newcastle Ministry was no longer in power. Mr .„ , George Grenville was now at the head of the Grenville s ° colonial policy, government. Of Grenville 's honesty and good ^•^ ^" ^' intentions there cannot be the slightest doubt. He was an over-zealous, well-meaning, but narrow-minded lawyer. He saw that the colonists habitually refused to obey the trade laws, and also that they declined to take an effective part in what his military advisers declared to be necessary measures for their own security, and for the best interests of the Empire. He determined in the first place to lower the prohibitory duties on sugar and molasses, and then to enforce the acts, using the naval power of England if necessary. This new policy was begun in 1763. It affected directly the com- mercial interests of New England and aroused great ill-feeling there, especially in Massachusetts. The attempt to secure funds toward the support of the regular troops led to the passage of the Stamp Act, which affected all the colonies. On the gth of March, 1764, Mr Grenville, in opening the budget of the year, stated that it might be thought proper for the colonists to contribute towards the support of the army stationed among them for their protection. He therefore pro- ir.] The Stamp Act, 1^6$. 49 posed a resolution that it might "be necessary to charge certain stamp duties in America." He had Passage of already informed the colonial agents of his in- the stamp Act, tention to bring forward this motion, and had ^^^^' directed them to consult their principals with a view to having the colonists themselves propose some more agreeable method of raising the necessary revenue. The resolution was passed without debate or opposition. Mr Grenville then suggested to the colonial agents that the colonial assemblies, by agreeing to this resolution before the final passing of the act, would thereby establish a precedent for being consulted in the future — or, he added, perhaps the assemblies might propose some other mode of being taxed by Parliament. Ample time was given them to formulate their wishes. Instead of so doing, the colonists pro- tested in vigorous and well-considered language against being taxed at all by Parliament. But their petitions were not even received by the House of Commons, in conformity to "a monstrous rule," as Lord Farnborough terms" it, which forbade petitioning against certain money bills. ^ The act levying stamp duties passed the Commons in March, 1765, without any considerable debate and with only fifty votes in the negative, and received the royal assent. The king, at the moment, was suffering from his first attack of mental disorder, and the royal assent was given by commission. The colonial agents, many of whom were Americans, believing the act would be peacefully carried out, secured the places of stamp distributers for themselves and their friends. The Stamp Act, in itself, was a fair and equitable measure. In its essential features it was not unlike a Stamp Act passed by the Massachusetts legis- ^J^^ stamp lature in 1755. No duty was levied on the ordinary papers of exchange nor on receipts for money paid. 1 May, Constitutional History (edition of 1873), ^^^' 347i ^^d note I to p. 348. C. A. 4 50 Constitutional Opposition, 1760-74. [Chap. The money raised under the act was to be expended in America and not drawn to England. The only evil feature of the act, as a law, was the clause which provided that, at the discretion of the prosecuting officer, any case arising under it should be tried in the Admiralty Courts without a jury. The news of its passage reached America early in April. But except for the spiking of the guns in a fort near Phila- delphia, there was no demonstration of any moment until the end of May. Many historians have urged this as a proof that the act would have quietly gone into effect but for the impulse given to agitation by one fiery spirit. This view does not seem to be well founded. The quiet was rather of that sort which precedes a storm. There was no tangible issue to contest. When such an issue should arise there surely would, be an explosion. It chanced, however, that the matter did not rest until the day canae for buying stamps. Patrick Henry had been returned to fill a vacancy in the House of Burgesses, as the popular branch of Henry's Res- t}^g Virginia legislature was called. It was his olutions, 1765. ... ,.,.,. J first term of service m any legislative body, and the Burgesses were mainly conservative men of property whose minds, at this time, were fully occupied with an important question of colonial politics. As none of these men proposed to protest against the Stamp Act, Henry, on the next to the last day of the session (May 29, 1765), offered certain resolu- tions which he forced through by dint of his matchless oratory. There has been some confusion as to the precise form in which the resolutions passed. This was due partly to the fact that on the next day, after Henry had left, the Conservatives repealed the boldest of them. The whole set, preamble and all, had been sent off to the north and south almost as soon as written. They were printed everywhere as the Virginia Reso- lutions, and are here given entire from a manuscript copy left by Henry : ir.] Henrys Resolutions, 1765. 5 1 "Whereas, The Honourable House of Commons, in England, have of late drawn into question how far the General Assembly of this colony hath power to enact laws for laying of taxes and imposing duties payable by the people of this his Majesty's most ancient colony; for settling and ascertaining the same to all future times, the House of Burgesses of this present General Assembly have come to the following resolves : — " Resolved, That the first adventurers, settlers of this his Majesty's colony and dominion of Virginia, brought with them and transmitted to their posterity, and all other his Majesty's subjects, since inhabiting in this his Majesty's colony, all the privileges and immunities that have at any time been held, enjoyed, and possessed by the people of Great Britain. " Resolved, That by two royal charters, granted by King James the First, the colonists aforesaid are declared and entitled to all privileges and immunities of natural-born sub- jects, to all intents and purposes as if they had been abiding and born within the realm of England. "Resolved, That his Majesty's liege people of this his ancient colony have enjoyed the right of being thus governed by their own Assembly in the article of taxes and internal police, and that the same have never been forfeited, or any other way yielded up, but have been constantly recognized by the King and people of Great Britain. " Resolved, Therefore, that the General Assembly of this colony, together with his Majesty or his substitutes, have, in their representative capacity, the only exclusive right and power to lay taxes and imposts upon the inhabitants of this colony; and that every attempt to vest such power in any other person or persons whatever than the General Assembly aforesaid, is illegal, unconstitutional, and unjust, and has a manifest tendency to destroy British as well as American liberty. " Resolved, That his Majesty's liege people, the inhabitants of this colony, are not bound to yield obedience to any law 4—2 52 Constitittional Opposition, 1760-74. [Chap. or ordinance whatever, designed to impose any taxation what- soever upon them, other than the laws or ordinances of the General Assembly aforesaid. " Resolved, That any person who shall, by speaking or writing, assert or maintain that any person or persons, other than the General Assembly of this colony, have any right or power to impose or lay any taxation on the people here, shall be deemed an enemy to his Majesty's colony." These resolutions are given in full partly to show the legal phraseology in which the leaders of the Revolution were accustomed to clothe their State papers; but more especially to show the bold and unhesitating language with which Henry was wont to treat any subject. At first they were passed around from hand to hand. Later on they were printed in the newspapers; but it was not until July that they were generally known throughout the colonies. Meantime, on June 6th, before the Virginia Resolves were known at Boston, Otis had introduced and pushed Stamp Act ' ' Congress through a reluctant House of Representatives a '^^^^^^- call for a general meeting of committees from all the continental assemblies in a Congress to secure united action in regard to the Stamp Act. The party opposed to agitation was in the majority in the Massachusetts House of Representatives, and two conservative members were joined with Otis to form the Massachusetts committee. The response to this proposition was at first not at all favourable. Henry's resolutions, however, had formulated the opinion of the people at large. One assembly after another accepted the invitation of Massachusetts until all which were in session, except that of New Hampshire, had chosen committees. In August, the names of the stamp distributers were made public. Then at last an issue was raised. Riots occurred in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, II.] TJie Stamp Act, 1765. 53 Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. The Boston riots were the most serious of all. There the resentment of the mob was directed against the customs ofificials . '^^^ stamp . , T ., Act disobeyed. as well as against the stamp distributer. Much damage was done to property, and the whole affair was dis- graceful. Before long, every stamp distributer had resigned. As the stamped paper and the stamps arrived at the several ports, they were stored in the forts or oftentimes on vessels in the harbours. November ist arrived, the day on which the act was to come into force. Not a stamp could be bought. There was no one in America authorized either to open the packages of stamped paper or to sell stamps. In the condition of temper then prevailing among the people, no royal official seemed disposed to stretch a point to get the stamps into circulation. Soon the royal officials were themselves obliged to violate the act and to clear vessels without using stamped paper — though such clearances were plainly illegal. A few clearances on stamped paper issued by the collector at Savannah, Georgia, were the only instances in which the act was observed. The judges were obliged, after a brief period of waiting, to open the courts regardless of the law. In one case, a cler^ of the court, who re- fused to use unstamped paper, was threatened by the judge with confinement for contempt of court if he persisted in his refusal. The newspapers appeared with a death's head or some ingenious device in the corner where the stamp should have been. In the case of probate business alone does there seem to have been any appreciable inconvenience from the refusal to use the stamps. The Stamp Act Congress met at New York on October 7th. It formulated a Declaration of Rights, on the lines of the Virginia Resolutions, and petitions to _ ^"^^""p ^'^^ ° ' '■ Congress, 1765. the king and to the two Houses of Parliament. The importance of the Stamp Act Congress consists not so much in what it performed as in the fact of its existence. For years the English government had sought in vain to bring the 54 Constitutional Opposition, 1760-74. [Chap. colonies into some kind of union against the French. Now, in one moment, of their own motion, they came together. The Stamp Act Congress, therefore, marks the beginning of the American Union. Moreover the leaders of the radical party in the several colonies there represented came together and ex- changed ideas. For the first time the men of the Revolution met each other face to face. Virginia was not represented, owing to the impossibility of electing a committee; and Otis and Henry, the two men who gave the first impulse to revolu- tion, probably never met. The king before this had dismissed the Grenville Ministry for personal reasons. After some attempts to English secure the services of Pitt, he was obliged to Politics. ' ° confide the government to the section of the Whig party, which might well have been called the Regular Whigs, led by the Marquis of Rockingham, of the great house of Wentworth, whom the king had treated with ignominy a short time before. The ministry, possessing neither the con- fidence nor the goodwill of the monarch, nor any inherent strength of its own, immediately found itself face to face with a serious crisis in the affairs of the Empire. Curiously enough the Stamp tax, which had been chosen on account of what might be called its self-enforcing qualities, was in the existing state of the public mind in America almost incapable of en- forcement — a whole people could not be compelled to go to law, nor could the colonists be obliged to make wills or read newspapers. They might dispose of their property before death and might read news-letters instead of stamped printed sheets. They certainly could not be forced to buy stamps without the presence of an army; and the ministers must have paid some slight heed to Franklin's remark to the effect that an army sent to America would find no rebellion prevailing there but might indeed make one. There could be no hope from modification of the law, as the act in its present shape could be II.] Repeal of the Stamp Act, lyGG. 55 carried out as easily as any modified act could be. Repeal and enforcement, therefore, were the only alternatives, and everything pointed toward repeal. In the eyes of the ministry the act was the work of their predecessors in ofifice who would be discredited „ , , ^ ^ Repeal of the by repeal. Pitt was still the " Great Com- stamp Act, moner," and his speech advocating repeal de- ^^^^' cided the matter. He sought to elaborate a theory drawing a distinction between the power to tax and the general legislative power. On the face of it there seemed to be some ground for this distinction. The preamble of the Stamp Act itself seemed to carry its own condemnation: "We, your Majesty's subjects, the Commons of Great Britain give " the prop- erty of other subjects living in America. Pitt maintained that Parliament was the supreme legislative body and might raise a revenue from the colonies by means of imposts; as such a tax would be an external tax. In this view, the majority of the colonists would probably have concurred, with the ex- ception, perhaps, that they might have maintained that only such duties as were incidental to the regulation of commerce could be raised by Parliament. But up to that time there had been no general denial of the legislative supremacy of Parlia- ment. Otis had expressly acknowledged it. Acting on Pitt's suggestion, the ministry introduced two bills — one repealing the Stamp Act, the other declaring the legislative supremacy of Parliament. Both were passed (1766) notwithstanding very able speeches made by Lord Mansfield in the Peers and by Grenville in the Commons against the repeal of the Stamp Act. Looking backward, it is now clear that Pitt and Lord Camden were wrong; that the law was best expounded by Lord Mansfield and George Grenville; and that the Stamp Act was constitutional. Certainly it was not expedient. But here, as in the case of writs of assistance and the exercise of the veto power, the only remedy in the hands of the colonists 56 Constitutional Oppositioji, 1760-74. [Chap. was revolution. At the time, liowever, the colonists paid little heed to the Declaratory Act or foresaw that it would lead to another tax. They rejoiced only over the repeal of the Stamp Act. The same year (1766) witnessed the downfall of the ^ ^ J, Rockingham Ministry and the accession of Pitt Townshend s ° -' Colonial to powcr at the head of a government comprising ''° "^^' representatives of several groups and hence derisively dubbed by Edmund Burke the "Mosaic Ministry." Mr Pitt was no longer in the Commons, but had been raised to the peerage as the Earl of Chatham. As he was in feeble health, the Duke of Grafton, a man of slight force, was the nominal Prime Minister. Lord Chatham retired at once to the country, suffering from some mysterious malady, which seems to have been not unlike the "nervous prostration" of the present day. His controlling hand withdrawn, the ministry soon resolved itself into its component parts. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was Charles Townshend, a man of ability, though lacking force and steadfastness of purpose. He had been in office, with the exception of five years, since 1743. He had advocated the right of Parliament to tax the colonies, and had voted for the repeal of the Stamp Act solely on grounds of expediency. He now determined to raise a revenue by means of taxes to be levied by act of Parliament on goods imported into the colonies, the taxes to be paid at the time and place of importation. This would result in raising a very dangerous question and in opening a dispute which might well have been avoided. The colonists did not deny the power of Parliament to regulate commerce, nor did they refuse to pay duties inci- dental thereto, like the tax of one penny per pound on all tobacco exported from Virginia. But the only act under which the question of raising a revenue from imports had arisen was the Sugar Act. That had only recently been executed with vigour, and it bore hard on New England alone. II.] The ToivnsJiend Acts, \']6'j. 57 Moreover, there were still great difficulties in the way of enforcing it. The judges were dependent on the colonial legislatures for their salaries, and there were then no exchequer courts in the colonies. The colonial juries would not convict for alleged breaches of the revenue laws, if they could possibly avoid it. Furthermore, the English Commissioners of the Customs found it practically impossible to exercise adequate supervision over the American customs officials three thousand miles away. Mr Townshend determined to reform all these evils, as he regarded them, at the same time that he imposed new taxes. It was provided, therefore, in the Townshend Acts (1767) that a Board of Commissioners resident in the colonies should have charge of the American customs service; that cases arising under the revenue Acts should be tried in the Admiralty Courts — without juries; and that the salaries of the colonial judges and other royal ofificials should be paid out of the proceeds of the new duties. Writs of assistance were also declared by Parliament to be legal. At about the same time Parliament suspended the functions of the Assembly of New York, which had refused to make certain appropriations re- quired by an act of Parliament. Thus at one moment several distinct issues were raised, namely: the constitutional relations of Parliament to the colonial legislatures, the right of trial by jury, the control of the judiciary and executive, the legality of writs of assistance, and the right of Parliament to tax goods imported into the colonies. It is extraordinary that a man who voted for the repeal of the Stamp Act on the ground of expediency should within two years have inaugurated a new policy whose inexpediency was manifest. Mr Townshend died shortly after the passage of these acts, and it is not im- possible that disease may have already unsettled an otherwise brilliant intellect. The Massachusetts House of Representatives took imme- diate notice of these acts, which indeed bore with greater 58 Constitictional Opposition, 1760-74. [Chap. severity on the merchants of New England than on the traders _, -. of any other section. In the winter of 1767-68, The Massa- -' i i i chusetts cir- the Representatives drew up several letters and petitions. Among these papers was a Circular Letter to be signed by the Speaker and sent to the other assemblies, notifying them of the action of Massachusetts and suggesting concerted measures. In this letter a desire for independence was expressly disavowed. Probably this sen- tence attracted the attention of the English government, which might well have been alarmed at the necessity for such a disavowal. At all events, the Secretary of State for the Colonies wrote to Governor Bernard of Massachusetts, com- manding him to order the legislature to rescind the letter under pain of dissolution in case of refusal. At the same time, letters were sent to the governors of the other colonies, directing them to dissolve the assemblies of their respective colonies in case they acted on the Circular Letter. It is difficult to con- ceive the state of ignorance of colonial society which prompted these orders. In England a dissolution of Parliament was dreaded by the members of a newly-elected House of Commons, as a re-election often occasioned considerable expense and was always attended with inconvenience. In the colonies, the case was very different. The members of the radical party welcomed a new election, as it gave them an opportunity to go home, consult their constituents, and return to the seat of government with a fresh mandate and probably in increased numbers, at little or no expense to themselves. The Massa- chusetts House of Representatives refused to rescind the Circular Letter. The other assemblies hastened to make the cause of Massachusetts their own. Another cause for discontent was now added to those noted ^^ ,,. . . above. According to an act passed in the time The Virginia ° ^ Resolves of of Henry the Eighth, long before the days of '^ ^' colonization, an English subject accused of II.] The Virginia Resolves, 1769. 59 crimes committed outside the realm could be tried and punished in England. Both Houses of Parliament now presented an address to the king, praying that persons charged with treason committed in the colonies might be brought to England for trial. The Virginia Assembly met May nth, 1769. It was now in the hands of the radical party, or rather the con- servative element in Virginia had been largely converted to radicalism, and the leading men of property were now generally on the side of the maintenance of colonial rights against the English government. Five days after its meeting, the House of Burgesses adopted a set of resolutions known as the Virginia Resolves, setting forth the colonial contention on the questions at issue in the clearest and most outspoken language.-' Another resolution directed the Speaker to send copies of these Resolves to the several colonial legislatures on the continent, requesting their concurrence therein. This was generally given — some assemblies using the language of the Virginia Resolves. The moment that Governor Botetourt of Virginia was advised of the action of the Burgesses, he dis- solved the assembly. But the Burgesses met in tation Agree- a neighbouring house and signed an agreement ™^" ^' binding thenaselves not to import or use any goods taxed by Parliament until the obnoxious laws should be repealed. This agreement was drawn by George Mason, later the draftsman of the Virginia Bill of Rights, and was presented to the meeting by George Washington, already well known in the colonies as a soldier and one of the wealthiest men in Virginia, and, indeed, in America. There had been non-importation agree- ments at the time of the Stamp Act. But now the move- ment became general. Before the end of the year, all the colonies adopted similar agreements. The object of this non-importation policy was to put pressure on the English merchants engaged in the American trade, and it was suc- 1 See Appendix I. 6o ConstiUitional Opposition, i'/6o-y4. [Chap. cessful. The Townshend duties had produced in one year the net sum of two hundred and ninety-five pounds sterling. During the same time no less than one hundred and seventy thousand pounds had been expended in military charges made necessary by the disorders consequent on the Townshend Acts and the attempt to prevent inter-colonial action. A portion of the ministry, led by Lord North, Townshend's successor as Chancellor of the Exchequer, opposed the entire repeal of the act levying duties. By a majority of one, it was determined to retain the tax on tea, which had produced the preceding year a gross revenue of three hundred pounds. It is well ascertained that Lord North acted under the direction of the king, and also that the argument which influenced the king was the advisability of establishing a precedent. The other duties were abolished. During these years (1763-70) the English government never seems to have counted the cost of receding Inexpediency '-' of the English from positions once taken; nor to have realized ^°'"^^' the fact that if concessions were made they should have been made in such a manner as would have put an end to the dispute. The colonists, like other men in other countries and epochs, objected to paying mone.y to any tax- gatherer — that at once will be admitted. But in this question, they objected not so much to paying money as to paying money which they felt was illegally levied. If it was important from the point of view of the English government to retain the tax on tea as a species of continuing declaratory act, it was equally important for the colonists to pay no tax which could be drawn into precedent. They drank smuggled tea sold at a low rate by the Dutch West India Company, because it was cheap. Tea, therefore, was the best article the government could have chosen for their purpose, because so long as the tax was not paid it attracted little attention. Possibly this tax might have developed quietly into a precedent had not II.] The Boston Massacre, 1770. 61 its existence been brought prominently to the notice of the colonists. The partial repeal of the Townshend duties took place in April, 1770. In the preceding March, an affray , known as the " Boston Massacre " had very greatly Massacre," complicated the situation, although the news of '^^*'' the disturbance had not reached England at the time of the repeal. This unfortunate affair resulted in the killing of several men and the wounding of several more by British soldiers, acting under strong provocation, in one of the most im- portant streets in Boston. A few soldiers belonging to the regular army had been ordered to Boston in 1766. The Board of Commissioners appointed under the Townshend Acts established their head-quarters at the same place, where they were certain to be opposed in every possible manner. They might have entered upon their duties at one of the ports of the Middle Colonies with much greater convenience to the service and with no danger to themselves. The point now under discussion has nothing to do with the rightfulness or otherwise of the Acts of Trade. The government having undertaken to enforce them should not have placed its agents without adequate protection among the people most likely to resist them in the discharge of their functions. The seizure of the sloop Liberty, owned by John Hancock, a wealthy merchant and very popular man, brought on the Commissioners the anger of the mob. They fled to a fort in the harbour and demanded more troops and a large naval force for their pro- tection. The soldiers sent in these circumstances were re- garded as aliens and enemies by the people of Massachusetts. The officers were treated as outcasts and frowned upon by what is known as "society." Early in 1770, blood was shed in an attempt by a party from the Rose frigate to impress seamen from a colonial vessel. Later, a boy had been accidentally killed in the streets of Boston. The " massacre " of March, 1770, 62 Constitutional Opposition, 1760-74. [Chap. was brought on by a personal dispute between some soldiers and labourers. In the beginning, it had no connection with taxa- tion or the rights of the colonies. As soon as the "massacre " became known, it was at once evident that a very serious crisis had arisen. In the temper then prevailing, the troops must be removed or they would be slaughtered to a man, and an armed conflict with the mother country precipitated. Samuel Adams stated the facts to the Lieutenant-Governor, Hutchinson, who in the absence of Bernard acted as Governor, and later was ap- pointed Governor. Hutchinson tried to temporize and offered to remove a part of the troops. But Adams replied that if he could order one regiment away he could send all, and all the soldiers were removed from the town. The officers and men present at the time of the firing were tried on a charge of murder. They were defended by John Adams and Josiah Quincy, two leading patriots, and acquitted by a jury of colonists. Two soldiers were convicted of manslaughter and slightly branded. After the lapse of more than a century, the historical student feels impelled to bear witness to the general good behaviour of the soldiers under trying circumstances, and to the sense of justice exhibited by the jurymen at the trial. The anniversary of the "massacre" was celebrated until after the peace of 1783. Probably the issues underlying no other event in American history have been so misunderstood by friends and opponents as those relating to this so-called " massacre. " The colonists regarded the British standing army as existing under British law. They considered that their consent — they not being represented in Parliament — had not been given to the standing army. They maintained that such consent could only be given by the legislatures of the several colonies. From the colonists' standpoint, the troops had no more constitutional right in Massachusetts than the Dutch soldiers had in England during the time of William III. The theory underlying the argument was the same as that on which II.] Committees of Correspondence. " 63 the opposition to taxation rested. The colonists in short denied the existence of a legislative union with England. From another point of view the "massacre" was important because it showed the danger to the liberty of the subject incurred by the substitution of the military for the civil power. The removal of the troops, therefore, was commemorated as a victory for freedom. After the removal of the soldiers, a time of quiet supervened. For a moment, it seemed as if there were nothing to dispute about. The soldiers were out of sight, and the Tea Act was forgotten. The struggle was soon renewed. ° . °° Local Com- Hutchinson refused to accept any salary from the mittees of Cor- province, and later it was announced that the despondence, judges would likewise be paid by the Crown. As may be easily imagined, it is difficult to stir up rebellion for the right to pay another's salary. Hutchinson, however, most rashly began an academic discussion as to the rights and duties of the colonists, proving conclusively that the position assumedby the colonists was unsound and that they must either submit or become inde- pendent. Hutchinson undoubtedly was right, but it was the height of imprudence to convince the colonists that they must submit to what they regarded as tyranny, or fight. Samuel Adams saw at once the advantage such a discussion gave to his side. Almost alone at this time, he ardently longed for inde- pendence. He organized a system of town Committees of Correspondence throughout the province and set on foot a discussion of the case. At the time no answering echo came to Massachusetts from the other colonies. One over-zealous ofificer had placed in Adams' s hand this most formidable weapon of revolutionary organization, the acts of another over-zealous officer gave Henry the opportunity to extend the system of extra-legal political organization to all the colonies. This latter official was Lieutenant Dudington, master of the revenue vessel Gaspee, employed in watching the waters of 64 Constitutional Opposition, 1760-74. [Chap. Narragansett Bay. He had incurred the ill-will of all the merchants and traders on the bay. One night, ,^t^*''"'^''°" a report was brought to Providence that the of the Gaspee. ^ . Gaspee was ground some few miles away. Led by the most prominent merchant in the place, men from Provi- dence boarded her in the middle of the night, seized the crew, and set the vessel on fire. The affair was really a personal encounter between an official and persons whom he had of- fended. It is not well to make mole-hills into mountains; and never was a mole-hill exaggerated as was this. A most porten- tous Commission, including three chief-justices, was sent to Rhode Island to inquire into the matter, to seize the perpetra- tors, and to convey them to another colony or to England for trial. Probably several hundred if not a thousand persons knew the names of nearly every one who had taken part in the burn- ing of the Gaspee, but not one name could the Commission of Inquiry discover. Moreover, the Chief-Justice of Rhode Island, Stephen Hopkins by name, declared that not a person should be removed from the colony for trial without its limits. The Commission abandoned the inquiry and reported its failure to the king. But the matter did not stop at that point. The Virginia Assembly happened to be in session when the report of the appointment of this Commission Committees reached the Old Dominion. Under the leader- of Corre- ^y^ of Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson, a spondence. , permanent Committee of Correspondence was appointed "to maintain a correspondence with our sister colonies " and to inform themselves particularly of the facts as to the Gaspee Commission. The resolution was communi- cated to the other colonies, but at first with discouraging re- sults, as only Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and South Carolina joined Virginia in appointing Colonial Committees of Correspondence (July, 1773). The machinery, however, had been invented which might easily II.] Destructio7i of the Gaspee. 65 develop into a complete organization, for, by combining the Virginia colonial committees with committees of local divisions as in Samuel Adams's plan, an extra-legal, yet not illegal, organization might be formed capable of exercising all the functions of the State. The attempt to compel the colonists to purchase tea on which the Parliamentary tax had been paid brought all the colonies into this revolutionary union. The English East India Company had never controlled the colonial tea market. The reason was, that in addition to the original cost and freight charges, to which all tea was liable, English tea was further liable to an inland duty of twelve-pence per pound to be paid on with- ""^^ "^^^ drawal from the warehouses for consumption in England, or for export to the colonies. Under the Townshend Acts it was still further burdened with a customs duty of three- pence per pound when landed in the colonies. In these cir- cumstances, the Dutch East India Company provided nearly all the tea consumed in America, which was smuggled in free of duty. The English company was now in severe financial straits. To help it out of its difficulties, the government pro- posed to permit it to send tea to the colonies without payment of the twelve-penny inland duty, but still liable to the three- penny Townshend tax. Friends of the government, and, it is stated, the company also, suggested that the latter tax should be paid by the company in England and added to the price of the tea without anything being said about it. But the government was immovable on that point. They were anxious to establish a precedent, and to accomplish that the tax must be paid in America. The colonists, regarding the whole busi- ness as an attempt to bribe them into surrender, by giving them tea cheaper than the people of England could buy it, refused from North to South, apparently without any urging from the Committees of Correspondence, to have anything whatever to^ do with it. Large quantities were at once despatched to C. A. 5 V 66 Constitutional Opposition, 1760-74. [Chap. Philadelphia, Charleston (South Carolina), New York, and Boston. The consignees at the two first-named ports resigned when requested by the people. No tea was landed at Phila- delphia and New York, the collectors of those ports allowing the vessels to clear without breaking bulk. At Charleston the collector insisted upon the tea being landed. It was stored in a damp cellar and soon spoiled. At Boston, however, a com- bination of circumstances brought on an explosion. Among the consignees were the sons of Governor Hutchin- .. ^w T, . son. They refused to resign. The collector of " The Boston _ ■' ° Tea Party," the port fcfused to allow the vessels to clear out- ^'^' ^^^^' ward until the tea had been landed in conformity to law. The governor declined to grant a permit to the vessels to pass the fort until they were properly cleared. The only way to cut the knot was to destroy the tea, and it was thrown into the harbour by a mob. These occurrences at once aroused great excitement on ^^ „ both sides of the Atlantic. Six more colonies The Repres- sive Acts of chose Committees of Correspondence, Pennsyl- '^^^^^ vania alone refusing. Unmindful of these things and of the action of Virginia on the occasions of the Stamp Act and the Gaspee Commission, the English government determined to isolate Massachusetts, and to crush out the spirit of resistance in that Province. Parliament speedily suspended, by statute, the operation of the Charter of Massachusetts, closed the port of Boston to commerce, and provided that persons accused of crimes, alleged to have been committed while putting down riots, should be transported for trial with the necessary witnesses to some place outside the colony. General Gage, the commander-in-chief of the British army in America, was commissioned governor with very extensive powers. At nearly the same time, the Quebec Act extended the limits of the Province of Quebec to include the country west of the Alleghanies, ac far south as the Ohio River. II.] The Acts of 1774. ^J The colonies of Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia all claimed rights in this territory. The third and fourth clauses of , "^^^ Quebec ■' Act, 1774. the act reserved the rights of holders of grants from the Crown. It is impossible to say precisely what this reservation meant, as no case involving these points has ever been decided by the courts. It is probable that the titles of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania would have been recognized. These " saving clauses " do not seem to have been widely known in America. Quebec was largely inhabited by Roman Catholics, and was governed as a conquered province. This act was understood by the colonists to evince a disposi- tion on the part of the English government to limit the self- governing colonies to the seaboard, to establish the Roman Catholic Church in a large portion of British America, and to extend the use of the civil as distinguished from the common law. For these reasons its passage aroused feelings of bitter resent- ment among the colonists, whose passions were already excited by the harsh treatment measured out to the town of Boston. The people of the other colonies made the cause of Massa- chusetts their own. Washington offered to raise, ° ' Jefferson s arm, and equip a thousand men at his own ex- Summary pense, and to march at their head to the defence '''^'' ^'^'^'^' of the people of Boston. From all parts of the continent came supplies of food, clothing, and other necessaries for the poor of the closed seaport. Jefferson, in his Summary View, boldly set forth the theory that Parliament had no authority whatever over the colonies, not even as to the regulation of the external trade of the colonies. This theory speedily found favour among a people who until 1774 had expressly admitted the legislative supremacy of the British Parliament in all cases whatsoever, excepting that of taxation. Everywhere the opposition party became bolder; everywhere it acquired increased strength. On the 17th of June, 1774, the Massachusetts legislature s— 2 68 Constitutional Opposition, 1760-74. [Chap. was in session at Salem, the new capital of the province. The doors of the room, in which the Representatives tai Congress were in session, were locked. Samuel Adams summoned. moved a resolution providing for a Continental Congress to be held at Philadelphia on September ist next en- suing. The two Adamses and two other persons were then chosen to represent Massachusetts in the Congress. While this debate was in progress, the Secretary of the Province, standing on the staircase, just without the Representatives' door, read a proclamation from the governor, dissolving the assembly. This time the call for a congress was responded to most heartily. The First Continental Congress as- First Conti- •' . ° _ nentai Con- sembled at the appointed day, all the colonies gress, 1774. except Georgia being represented. It was dis- tinctly in the control of those who advocated moderation, and were not prepared to go to the lengths advocated by Jefferson in the Summary Vietv. This was recognized by the New Englanders, who kept as much as possible in the back- ground. The Declaration of Rights, voted by this Con- gress, was mild in tone, and the same criticism applies to the memorials, petitions, etc. published by it. The one important measure initiated by this body was the " Association " to secure the carrying out of a new non-importation and non-consumption agreement. The Congress recommended that committees should be elected by each town, county, or other administrative unit, by whatever name it was called, to oversee the execution of the non-intercourse policy. These committees were supervised by the legislative Committees of Correspondence. The names of offenders against the Association were to be published, and any colony refusing to enter the Association should be regarded as inimical to "the' liberties of this country," and denied all intercourse with the members of the Association. Thus the colonies were for the first time united into one political organi- zation, apart from the British Empire. Moreover, the organi- II.] The First Continental Congress. 69 zation was so perfect that it controlled the movements of the humblest individual. Having set this machinery in motion, the Congress adjourned, not without providing, however, for the assembling of a new Congress in the following May (1775), in case the grievances of the colonists should not be redressed before that time. There probably were not a dozen men in all the colonies at that time (October, 1774) who wished for in- dependence. Furthermore, probably not a dozen men in all the colonies supposed that the breaking out of civil war was only a matter of a few months. Had there been a strong, wise, and prudent man at the head of affairs at Boston the rupture might have been postponed for many years. General Gage, now civil and military governor of Massa- chusetts, was neither wise, nor prudent, nor ' . . ' ^ ' Gage, Gover- strong. He had at his disposal a small veteran nor of Massa- army, supposed to be adequate to cope with any ^ "setts, 1774. force likely to be brought against it. As the result proved, this army was powerless in his hands to do more than maintain itself in Boston. Moreover, Gage annoyed the colonists by petty reprisals whose complete success could have had slight influence on the impending crisis, but whose failure meant certain disaster and rebellion. In September, he issued precepts for the election of Repre- sentatives to a General Court to be held at ^he Massa- Salem in October, 1774. The situation of affairs chusetts . \ r I • 1 1 Provincial became so threatenmg before that time that he congress, prorogued the assembly before it met. The °'^'- '^^4 Representatives assembled at the appointed time, however, formed themselves into a Provincial Congress, and adjourned to Cambridge. The theory which they advanced was that Gage, refusing to govern in accordance with the Charter of Massachusetts, had abdicated his authority: there was therefore no longer any properly constituted authority in the province, and the people must look to their own safety. This theory 70 Constittitional Opposition, 1760-74. [Chap. rested on the assumption that Parliament had no constitutional power to suspend the charter of a colony, in whole or in part, or to interfere in any way with the internal concerns of any colony. The Provincial Congress, acting for the people of Massachusetts, appointed a Committee of Safety to act with other committees as an executive. It also appointed a Re- ceiver-General, or Colonial Treasurer, and advised the town authorities to pay the taxes, usually levied on the inhabitants of the towns, to him and not to the official acting under the authority of the king. Preparations for armed resistance were now pushed forward. On the other hand. Gage found himself almost isolated in - . , Boston. Workingmen refused to work for him, Lexington ° ' and Concord, and as the farmers refused to sell him supplies, pri 19, 1775- ]^g ^g^g obliged to import food for his army from Halifax. Alarmed at the hostile spirit everywhere displayed, he determined to disarm the populace of eastern Massachusetts. The first attempt to seize arms ended in a failure, but without bloodshed. Later on (April 19th, 1775), he sent out a strong detachment to seize stores said to be accumulated at Concord, a small town about eighteen miles from Boston. He had expected to surprise the colonists, but the secret became known before the troops left Boston on the night of the eighteenth. When the soldiers reached Lexington, on their way to Concord, they discovered a small body of militia, drawn up as if to oppose them, which however dispersed in the face of such a strong force. It is not certain which party fired first, as the accounts are conflicting, nor is it important; but it is certain that blood was shed on Lexington Common in the early hours of that April morning. Pressing onward, the soldiers reached Concord to find that most of the stores and munitions of war had been removed to some place of greater security. They destroyed a few barrels of flour, burned a cart-wheel or two, and disabled a few iron field-pieces. While there, they were n.] Lexington and Concord, lyyS- 71 assailed by the militiamen, and their starting on the return march to Boston was the signal for a general attack, which continued until the survivors gained the protection of the guns of the men-of-war anchored off Charlestown. Instead of returning home, the colonists encamped at Cambridge and began the siege of Boston. The time for constitutional oppo- sition was now at an end. The rightfulness of the colonial theories must be tested by war, or, to use the phrase of that time, "by an appeal to God." CHAPTER III. REVOLUTION. The fifteen years covering the events described in the last chapter (i 760-1 775) were years of growth in The Colo- population and in material resources without nists in 1775. i^ ^ parallel in the colonial period. The total popu- lation increased from sixteen hundred thousand in 1760 to nearly two and one-half million souls in 1 7 7 5 . The slaves formed about one-fifth of this total — numbering in 1775 nearly half a million to about four hundred thousand in 1 760. The increase in slave population was confined to the South, and was made up largely of fresh importations from Africa. The total popu- lations of the North and South were nearly equal, in the proportion of about thirteen to eleven; but the white popula- tion of the colonies, north of Mason and Dixon's line, far outnumbered that of the colonies to the southward. A further examination of the statistics will enable one better to under- stand the greater capacity for resistance displayed by the North in the coming conflict. For instance, the two largest colonies, Virginia and Massachusetts, contained respectively five hundred and fifty thousand and three hundred and fifty thousand in- habitants. The white population of the two colonies, however, was in the proportion of four to three and one-half. The next 72 Chap, hi.] The Colonists in lyj^. 73 largest colony was Pennsylvania, containing three hundred thousand inhabitants, nearly all white. In South Carolina, the negroes formed nearly two-thirds of the total of two hundred thousand. On the other hand, Connecticut, with about the same total population, contained hardly any blacks, slave or free. The fighting strength of the colonies having large slave populations was reduced nearly in the proportion of the blacks to the whites. Notwithstanding the disputes as to the enforcement of the trade laws and the complaints made by the „ . , J^ •' Material colonies, it appears to be well ascertained that prosperity, commerce and trade had flourished to an ex- '^ ^~^^" traordinary degree. Manufacturing had been extended, and, although it was still on a small scale, the Revolution found the colonists nearly self-supporting. Munitions of war were no doubt lacking, and at first there seemed to be no way to replenish them within the colonies. Gunpowder was soon manufactured there, however, and a lead mine in Virginia furnished material for bullets until the vein gave out in 1781. But the greater part of the supplies of war-materials were either captured from the British or procured from the French. The younger men among the colonists knew little of actual warfare. But everywhere there were veterans ^^ ^^.^ ^^ of the French wars, Washington and Prescott, the colonists for instance, who soon infused a knowledge of °^ '^^^' military methods into the masses of raw recruits. Experience showed that time had not diminished the fighting qualities of the race which disputed the fields of Naseby, Worcester, and Dunbar. The descendants of Cavaliers and Ironsides fought side by side in the American armies. With them might often have been discovered the grandchildren of the brave defenders of Limerick and Londonderry. In fact, the most venturesome of all parties in the great contests of the Stuart period had either emigrated or had been deported to the colonies. 74 Revolution. [Chap. The Americans were peculiarly fortunate in their leaders. ,,, ^. , As a man, and as a leader of men, George Washington, ° Greene, and Washington occupics an unique position among a ayette. historic pcrsonages of ancient and modern times. Other men have been more brilliant than he; but in no other man have considerable abilities been combined with absolute honesty and steadfastness of purpose as they were in him. Always serious, as if conscious of his own greatness, he never for one moment faltered. As a strategist and tactician, he was not the equal of some of his subordinates. It must not be supposed, however, that Washington did not know when to strike and how to strike hard. The return of the offensive at Trenton and the rescue of the army at Monmouth will for ever remain among the most instructive operations of war. More important for a man in his position, he was able to wait, and feared not the reproach of the moment. Cold and impassive in bearing, he yet inspired his men with confidence and respect. The greatest soldier, as a soldier, on the American side, was Nathanael Greene. Born of Quaker stock, in the little colony of Rhode Island, he taught himself the art of war, buying and borrowing books on that subject far and wide. Marching at the head of the Rhode Island troops, at the summons sent forth from Lexington, he at once gained a position to which neither his age, his experience, nor the force at his back entitled him. Washington, one of the wealthiest of the Virginia aristocrats, confided in the military insight of this son of the most demo- cratic colony, as he confided in that of no other man. In the beginning, Greene made many mistakes; but a few lessons in real fighting, combined with his theoretical training, made him a very efficient commander of a division or an independent force. Another soldier, worthy of mention with Washington and Greene, was Anthony Wayne, whose impetuosity in attack earned for him the sobriquet of "Mad Anthony." Un- stable in character and ignorant of strategy, Wayne executed III.] Military Leaders. 75 orders in a splendid manner. Of another ofificer one would wish to speak here. In military sagacity, bravery, and enthusiasm Benedict Arnold was a great soldier. His faults, leading to presumption and extravagance in living, hindered his advancement, and finally drove him to commit treason. But as the leader of a division in a hardly contested fight, few men have stood higher than he. Among the foreign officers who gathered beneath the standard of the young republic, Lafayette was first in place and merit. Like Washington, he was a man of means and of high social position. Although very young at this time, he never failed to justify the confidence which intrusted him with important commands. Another foreigner, Steuben, a Prussian veteran, who was appointed Inspector-General, made the Continental Line — as the more permanent American forces were termed — an efiticient body of troops. Many foreign officers were given positions which they could not sustain. Charles Lee, a renegade Englishman, committed treason many times; and of Horatio Gates, a recent immigrant to Virginia, it is difficult to speak with calmness. He was self-sufficient and cowardly; and he treated his sub- ordinates with a spirit of unfairness and jealousy hardly to be conceived. It is not necessary to say much concerning the British com- manders. Gage's reputation was so shattered at Howe Bunker Hill that no one has ever tried to re- cunton, and habilitate it. Sir William Howe, Gage's sue- "■■g°yne. cessor, commanded in the field on that memorable occasion, and ever afterwards evinced the greatest caution in assailing works defended by the colonists. He was also fond of luxury and ease. At all events, he threw away every opportunity of crushing his enemy in 1776, the most critical year for the colonists. Burgoyne might have done well on the open fields of Europe, but in the woods of northern New York he was surely out of place. Sir Henry Clinton seems to have had ^6 Revohition. [Chap. ability; but he, like Howe, was fond of winter-quarters; so fond of them, indeed, that Rodney, who passed a few weeks in New York in 1780, felt obliged to protest against his inactivity. Another obstacle to Clinton's success was the fact that Lord George Germaine, who, as Colonial Secretary, managed the war, had more confidence in Cornwallis, Clinton's subordinate, than he had in the commander-in-chief. This was in a measure justifiable, as Cornwallis showed more enterprise than any other British general. But the difficulties of the theatre of his campaigns were nearly insuperable. The great blot on the military reputations of Clinton and Cornwallis was the fortifica- tion of Yorktown. Each sought to throw the blame for that blunder on the other. A careful consideration of all the docu- ments produced by the two contestants points irresistibly to the conclusion that neither was responsible for it, and that it was due to an excusable misunderstanding of Clinton's orders by Cornwallis. Many of the subordinate commanders were men of ability, but the shadow of Lord George Germaine was over the whole enterprise. Had an able man, like the elder Pitt, been in control, many disasters would have been avoided. The caution so often displayed by the British commanders ,, , was combined with a rashness produced by Results of . British rash- contempt for their opponents, and ignorance of "^^^' the problem in hand, that is sometimes almost beyond belief. A few examples will well illustrate this point. Gage sent one thousand men on an expedition, eighteen miles away from the main army, into a region where twelve thousand armed soldiers gathered about them in less than twelve hours. Howe led three thousand men, burdened with heavy knap- sacks, up a steep hill, across fences and over ploughed land, on an intensely hot day, against soldiers commanded by veterans and protected by earthworks, and in consequence lost one-half his command. Burgoyne sent five hundred men away from his III.] The Theatre of War. 77 main army into a' region whence the captors of Ticonderoga had issued, and within reach of five times their own number of the enemy, commanded by one of the defenders of Bunker Hill. He lost the original detachment and part of another sent to its assistance. Tarleton attacked an American force of the same size as his own, commanded by Daniel Morgan, a man of great ability, without waiting to form his troops in line of battle. He lost nearly all of them, and barely escaped capture himself. These are a few examples of operations which might have been justified against the inhabitants of India, but against an enemy of British stock such rashness was criminal. The rank and file of the British army was excellent, and the terrible loss suffered at Bunker Hill was as much to their credit as it was to the discredit of their chiefs. The theatre of war measured some thousand miles in extent from north to south — from the Penobscot to the Savannah. It was intersected by deep rivers "^^ Theatre and large arms of the sea. Indeed, in place of one field of operations, there were a dozen. Thus the Hudson River separated the Eastern from the Middle Colonies, and the Mohawk divided the Hudson valley again into two distinct geographical districts. The Delaware River and Bay bisected the Middle Colonies, and Virginia was cut up into many long slender tracts of land by numerous large streams, the James, the York, the Potomac, and others. These rivers, flowing generally from west to east, made an invasion from north to south, or the reverse, a matter of great difficulty. In the extreme south, the settlements on the seaboard were sepa- rated from those on the mountain slopes by long stretches of sandy barren land, sparsely inhabited. In the south, too, there were many rivers subject to sudden freshets and fordable, even at low water, only at long intervals. It was possible to seize the towns on the seaboard; but it proved to be exceedingly difficult to sustain an army in the interior. Everything, in 78 Revolution. [Chap. short, so far as natural conditions of the country were con- cerned, made in favour of the defence. Under these circumstances, the American army should have been followed wherever it went and fought to the British &vi^. Instead of making that army the objective, the British plan of operations consisted in the occupation of territory. A base for the storage of munitions of war, for hospitals, and for a repairing station for the fleets was necessary. The seizure of New York for that purpose was, therefore, justifiable. But that should have been all. As long as Washington, with his poorly-clad army, could keep the field, the British soldiers, supplied with an abundance of everything, should have followed him. Instead of so doing, no sooner was one town captured, than preparations were made to capture another. Each place as it was occupied required an army to maintain it. The rebellion could have been crushed only by stamping out opposition, not by seizing land. It will be well to note two leading errors of this kind. Boston was of no conceivable use to the British from a military standpoint. The army was necessarily at Boston in the beginning of the conflict, but Boston should have been evacuated the moment it became clear that Massachusetts would have the support of the other colonies, and this seems to have been the opinion of both Gage and Howe. Yet a British army was blockaded in that town for nearly eleven months, and the opportunity thus given the other colonies to organize their governments and armies was well used. The capture of Philadelphia in 1777 was even more inexcusable. The Continental Congress held its meetings at Philadelphia, but that town was not a capital in the sense that its capture would disorganize the government. Congress was obliged to move to some other town — that was all. But the occupation of Philadelphia withdrew another army from the field, as it was beyond supporting-distance from New York. III.] British Strategy. 79 The war begun in New England was recommenced in the Middle Colonies. Before the conquest of either of those sections was even fairly certain, the Character of •' ' the contest. conquest of the South was undertaken. The New Englanders proved themselves able to deal with every force the British government placed in that section. With some help from the other colonies, the people of the Middle Colonies held the British in one or two seaboard towns. In the South, Cornwallis seemed to be supreme for a time. But Greene, with fifteen hundred regulars, assisted by large bodies of Southern militiamen, compelled the evacuation of the Caro- linas. Cornwallis m.arched up and down Virginia, attended closely by Lafayette, but at the end of the campaign he held only one town. Thus each section when attacked seemed able to defend itself. Under these circumstances, had there been no interference from outside, the struggle would have con- tinued until the people either of America or of Great Britain should become exhausted. It is by no means certain that the Americans would have been the first to succumb. We of the present day lay too much stress on the evil effects of a de- preciated currency and large debts. The social organization of the colonies, outside of the few large towns, was very simple. The people as a whole could have got on well enough had there been no currency at all. The farmers ploughed, planted, and reaped in comparative security. In the intervals of farm work, they would shoulder their muskets and fight Burgoyne or Cornwallis, then return home and go on with their labour. The sea-faring inhabitants of the coast engaged in privateering, and made a fair living from that precarious calling. War con- ducted on these lines might have continued indefinitely. The contest, however, was not to be thus decided. France, anxious to regain her lost prestige, joined the colonists as soon as Burgoyne's surrender made it reasonably certain that they could maintain themselves. Later, Spain and Holland took part in 8o Revolution. [Chap. the struggle. The navy of France gave the supremacy of the sea to the Allies for a few weeks in 1781, and Cornwallis was captured with his army. It is correct, therefore, to say that the aid afforded by France decided the conflict. It is, never- theless, by no means certain that, had France held aloof, the contest would have had any different termination — although the end would no doubt have been postponed. The "Siege of Boston" began on April 19th, 1775, and ,,^. ^ continued until March 17th, 1776, 'when the ' Siege of I t I I J Boston," 1775- British abandoned the town. During that time, ' ■ from five to ten thousand veterans, commanded by live generals. Gage, Burgoyne, Howe, Clinton, and Pigott, suffered themselves to be blockaded in a small town, often ill- supplied with provisions, fuel and forage, by a force consisting of from ten to twenty thousand undisciplined farmers and mechanics. This latter force was poorly equipped and changed in size and composition every week. Until July, 1775, it had no commander-in-chief. This inactivity of the British army is easily explained. The town of Boston was built upon a peninsula, which was connected with the mainland by a narrow strip of sand over which the tide sometimes flowed. This was defended by the besieged. But at the landward end, the blockading force had erected strong works which prevented egress from the town in that direction. In this way it was difficult for the British army to attack the colonists. Further- more, the army blockading Boston was a mere vanguard. The whole adult male population within a radius of forty miles formed the real army besieging Boston. Forty thousand men could have been placed in the field for a few days' service at any time. Then, too, the topography of the country greatly favoured the insurgents. The eastern part of Massachusetts is composed of relics of the terminal moraine of an ancient glacier in the shape of little oval hills called drumlins by the geologists. Three of these little hills — one of them known III.] Bimker Hill. 8i as Bunker Hill — formed a peninsula on which the town of Charlestown was built. This was situated between the Charles and Mystic Rivers to the north of Boston. It was connected with the mainland by a narrow isthmus which might well be described as a natural causeway. South and east of Boston was another and similar " neck, " then known as Dorchester Heights, but now forming South Boston. The road for the British out of Boston and for the colonists into that town lay in the possession of one or both of these subordinate peninsulas. On June i6th, reports reached the Colonial head-quarters that Gage intended to seize Dorchester Heights. The colonists determined to divert him from the execution of this plan by seizing the Charlestown hills. The occupation of this position had been long in contemplation, in connection with batteries to be placed on hills on the mainland, whose fire, converging in front of the works to be erected on Bunker Hill, would prevent a successful assault. But the supporting forts could not be supplied with artillery, and the project had been deferred. It was now decided to seize Bunker Hill, and to defend it as well as possible. But Prescott and his men, marching in the darkness of the night of June 16-17, passed Bunker Hill and threw up a redoubt on Breed's Hill, nearer Boston. The conflict is always known, however, as the Battle of Bunker Hill. Instead of using his preponderance in shipping to attack the Americans from the rear. Gage ordered an assault in front. Prescott and Stark, with some three thousand men, defended the redoubt and connecting lines. Howe, Clinton, and Pigott led five thousand men to the attack. Twice that splendid force marched up the hill to be turned back by a musketry fire. The third assault succeeded, mainly because the American ammunition was exhausted. The loss of from one thousand to fifteen hundred of their men attests the gallantry of the British soldiers. Few more splendid actions are recorded in history. But the comparative smallness of the colonial loss, four hundred C. A. 6 82 Revolution. [Chap. and forty-one — • most of which was suffered during the hasty retreat — shows the nature of the task to which Gage had set his men. The Americans were beaten at Bunker Hill and driven from the field; but the gallant defence they had made gave them a feeling of confidence in themselves of the greatest importance in the ensuing campaigns. The Second Continental Congress met at Philadelphia, „ .„ May, I77S- It continued in existence until Second Con- -" ' ' •^ tinentai Con- the Articles of Confederation went into opera- gress, 1775. ^j^^ in 1 78 1. At first it was only a meeting of the radical leaders in the several colonies. It soon acquired supreme power and exercised the functions of a sovereign. It adopted the army blockading Boston as its own, and ^^ „, undertook the defence of Massachusetts as a The War becomes gen- national affair. Political necessity required a erai, June, 1775. southern man to lead the army, and George Washington, a delegate from Virginia, was appointed Com- mander-in-chief (June, 1775), the actual commanders in the field being commissioned as major and brigadier-generals. Washington's place in the Virginia delegation was filled by the election of Thomas Jefferson, a much younger man, but already prominent from the boldness of his written opinions. Congress now issued a " Declaration setting forth the Reasons for Taking up Arms." Later, another petition was sent to the king, praying him, as "constitutional arbiter" between the several parts of the Empire, to use his veto power to protect his loyal American subjects from the oppression of his subjects living in England, exercised in the form of acts of Parliament. The only answer vouchsafed to this "Olive Branch" petition was a proclamation against traitors and rebels. In this manner the king drove more persons to rebellion than all the radical leaders in the colonies had done in the whole course of the dispute. Until that time, hundreds of thousands of persons, who denied the legislative power of Parliament, were strong in III.] Siege of Boston. 83 their loyalty to the king; soon they were to be ready for inde- pendence. Washington took command of the American army at Cambridge on July 3rd, 1775. He soon ° ■> J -3 ^ I I J Evacuation brought some semblance of order out of the of Boston, military chaos which then prevailed. With '^^'^^'^^^^■ an army constantly fluctuating in numbers, without heavy ordnance, and for weeks at a time without powder, he presented a firm front to the British. The magazines of Ticonderoga and Crown Point, seized in May, 1775, supplied ordnance as soon as the snow of the next winter made transportation possible. The Massachusetts navy provided powder, the spoil of an ordnance vessel captured from the British. In March, 1776, Washington was able to take the offensive. He seized Dor- chester Heights and compelled the evacuation of Boston. In the interim, an invasion of Canada, led by Montgomery and Benedict Arnold, had proved a complete failure. The first half of the year 1776 was, in some respects, the most important in the history of the country. Then it was decided to break loose from the towards mother land and to establish a new nation upon ""dependence, the American soil. Many English writers, from the epoch of the Revolution to the present day, have conceived themselves able to trace the independence of the United States back to the first settlement of the older colonies. This is true in the sense that the causes which ultimately brought about independence may be discovered in the beginning of the seventeenth century. It is not true, however, that any considerable body of colonists expected or desired independence earlier than the year 1776. Washington stated that in July, 1775, when he took command of the army, he "abhorred" the idea of independence, l^o doubt he expressed the feeling of the great mass of the people at that time. The modern American student, so far from being able to discern any conscious growth towards independ- 6—2 84 Revolution. [Chap. ence, is impressed by the great reluctance with which the people approached the final separation. The contemptuous rejection of the " Olive Branch " petition converted many. Among other important steps in bringing about a change of sentiment, was the necessity for making new provisions for the local governments. As the contest widened, one colony after another found itself without any government. In some cases constifufion^^. ^^^ attempt of the king's representative to pre- vent assistance being sent to Massachusetts brought on the conflict. In other cases, the endeavour to settle some local grievance by force compelled the governor's abdication. In Massachusetts, a Provincial Congress, repre- senting the people, assumed power in the beginning. After- wards, the Charter government was restored without a governor — the Council performing many of the executive functions. Connecticut and Rhode Island continued under their seven- teenth century charters, and New Hampshire was the only New England colony which was governed as a Royal Prov- ince. The departure of the governor left affairs in a state of disorder in that province. The people of New Hampshire were obliged to make some provision for government in order to protect themselves and to aid Massachusetts. They ap- plied to the Continental Congress for advice, and, in con- formity to its suggestion, established (Jan. 1776) a temporary organization " to continue only during the present unhappy differences with Great Britain." In May, 1776, every colony was in open revolt. Congress then advised each colony to assume such form of government as should seem best. The first colony to act under this vote was Virginia, which had been governed for some time by a "Convention," elected by the people. The first constitution of Virginia, adopted in June, 1776, is of considerable historical interest. The Bill of Rights prefixed to it was the work of George Mason. It con- tained an admirable exposition of the American theory of in.] The State Constitutions. 85 government, only equalled in that respect by the Declaration of Independence and by the Bill of Rights, drawn up by John Adams and adopted by Massachusetts in 1780. The Virginia Constitution also contained a Declaration of Independence, and a summary of the causes which led to this action, from the pen of Thomas Jefferson. It bears a close resemblance to the great declaration, and was formulated only a few weeks earlier. It is important to notice that this action of New Hampshire and Virginia was taken, as above stated, in conformity with the advice of the Continental Congress. No one can read the State papers of the revolutionary period without being impressed with the consti- tutional knowledge and literary skill of their c^mmfn Sense authors. Yet it well may be doubted if, all put together, they exerted so much influence in bringing the people to an acquiescence in the policy of independence as was exerted by one small pamphlet, Thomas Paine 's Common Sense. It is fortunate that our task does not require a de- scription of Paine's personal character. He came to America, was recognized as a man of remarkable literary power, and was encouraged by Franklin and Jefferson, who may have been unaware of the moral contamination which lurked in his neighbourhood. Certainly, he was a friend to liberty. In January, 1776, he published, anonymously, a pamphlet showing in simple language that "common sense " dictated independ- ence. Among other reasons which he gave, was the improb- ability of foreign nations interfering in the dispute so long as the Americans acknowledged allegiance to the British king. The essay met with great favour. It was read and debated in smithy and shop, and converted thousands of the people. Virginia now again took the lead, and directed her delegates in Congress to propose a declaration of inde- _ pendence. The motion was made in Congress of independ- by Richard Henry Lee, the chairman of the ^""' ^^^ ' 86 Revolution. [Chap. Virginia delegation, on June 17th, 1776. It was seconded by John Adams of Massachusetts. As many delegates were not instructed in the matter or, indeed, united in the approval of the proposal, the discussion of the motion was postponed for two weeks. To save time, however, a committee consisting of Jefferson, Franklin, John Adams, and two more, was appointed to prepare a declaration for discussion in case the motion should be adopted. This committee intrusted the drafting of the document to Jefferson, while it fell to John Adams to defend the motion on the floor of Congress. The ablest man on the other side was John Dickinson, a most patriotic and high-minded statesman. As the debates of Congress were secret and no notes of this disputation were ever published, we have slight knowledge of the arguments of the two champions. After more delay, and after a good deal of concession on both sides, the motion was finally carried on July 2nd, 1776. Two days later, on July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was adopted, though somewhat toned down and in a few cases materially altered from Jefferson's original draft. Some weeks afterwards, it was signed by the members of Congress present at the time of signing. This was done probably to protect Hancock, the presiding officer of Congress, who had attested the first copies of the document sent out on July 5th. The Declaration of Independence, apart from its arraignment of the king, contains the clearest definition of the theory of democratic government in existence. It is, therefore, of inter- est not to Americans alone, but to all civilized peoples. The Declaration contained in a concise form the theory of govern- ment commonly held by the people of the United States. It was the result of a long historical development, and was of American and English parentage. The ideas of Locke and Hooker can be seen in every sentence of the theoretical part. In fact, so impregnated was Jefferson with the language of Locke's essay, that, in some cases, he repeats the very words III.] Declaration of Independe^ice. ^y of the great philosopher. In his Ancient Laivs, Sir Henry Maine makes the curious statement, which has been repeated by later and less distinguished writers, that, in their great Declaration, the American jurists combined the French idea of equality with the more familiar English doctrine, that all men are born free. It will be interesting for the student to turn to the Declaration itself^ and observe that there is no statement in that document to the effect that men are born free; the words are, "all men are created equal." Furthermore, the doctrine of natural equality is to be found in Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity and in Locke's Essay on Government. Later, at the outbreak of the French Revolution, Jefferson was United States Minister at Paris. He returned to America in 1790, greatly influenced by French ideas. But there is not the least evidence that in 1776 he knew anything of French political writers, except Montesquieu, and in the latter' s book there is no statement of the natural equality of man. The Americans received valuable material aid from France. Their theories they inherited from their fathers, as their portion of the common heritage of the English race. The seat of war was now shifted to the Middle States. In .the summer of 1776, Sir William Howe, the new commander-in-chief, entered New York harbour The Hessians, with a powerful army, convoyed by a strong fleet under the command of Admiral Lord Howe. A large portion of the new troops were German veterans hired from their masters, the Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel, the Duke of Brunswick, and some others. The "dirty selfishness" of these men, as Frederick the Great termed it, is beneath contempt, and almost beyond belief, were it not so well authenticated. These leased soldiers, for it would be unfair to call those mercenaries who had not the option to go or stay, numbered, including all who came to America, some thirty thousand men. About 1 Appendix II. 88 Revolution. [Chap. eighteen thousand arrived in 1776, mostly from Hesse-Cassel. For this reason, the whole body was known to the Americans under the generic term of Hessians. To the English govern- ment there seemed nothing incongruous in hiring these men. The British king was a German prince — although he himself had been born in England. In the wars which Great Britain had waged on the Continent it had been customary to hire the Germans, in one way or another, to iight Britain's battles. The only new circumstance in this case was the fact that these foreign soldiers were now employed to kill English people who happened to live beyond the ocean. The opposition in Par- liament remonstrated against the business for this reason, but their remonstrance was unavailing. The great mass of English- men seem to have viewed with rejoicing the acquisition of a force which they were led to believe was both cheap and efficient. In reality, the employment of these soldiers was one of the greatest mistakes made by the government. It aroused in the breasts of many lukewarm Americans a desire for inde- pendence; it induced others to acquiesce in the Declaration of Independence; and it justified, in the eyes of many men, the alliance with France and Spain. The fate of these poor "Hessian " soldiers was indeed a hard one. Torn from their firesides and families, they were sent to the conquest of a savage people — for so most of them regarded the Americans. They found the art of war quite undeveloped in many re- spects in America. In Europe, where the father of this same Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel had in one campaign loaned six thousand soldiers to either side, the amenities of war were fully developed. There was as little shooting as possible, and one might almost imagine the two pickets of the op- posing forces calmly smoking their pipes together and com- municating the latest news from home. With the Americans the case was different. They were fighting for everything that was dear to them. Whenever they had a good opportunity III.] The Hessians. 89 to shoot an opponent, they shot him. The American states- men, however, endeavoured to induce the " Hessians " to desert. In 1776, Congress passed a resolution, drafted by Jefferson, Franklin, and John Adams, offering land in amounts of one thousand acres to every Hessian colonel, with suitable amounts to other officers, and one hundred acres to every private who should desert. Before the end of the war, the Hessians and the Americans understood each other well, and desertions seem to have been frequent. The most attractive person in this throng was the Baroness Riedesel, the young wife of one of the Hessian generals. She is chiefly memorable for a charming journal which she kept, and which gives us glimpses of American life as viewed by an outsider. On her way to America, she heard a story of the indecent and brutal treatment of two women by the Boston mob. This tale, given on hearsay evidence, was incorporated by Lord Mahon in his history, and has been repeated by later and generally fairer writers. There is not the slightest hint as to any such occur- rence in any newspaper of that time, in the papers of the very respectable family to which the alleged victims belonged, nor in any document of that period which has come to light. The Boston rabble did many things which might well have been left undone, but there is no recorded instance of their behaving indecently to any woman. The story was probably told to the credulous German woman by some person as ill-disposed to her as to the Americans. International comity, to say nothing of the ties of blood, might well forbid the relating of such discreditable anecdotes, except when well attested. Washington gathered to the defence of New York about one-half as many men as Howe could place in the field. Yet the latter general by his supine- '^^^ ^f^\ ^ J r paign of 1776. ness allowed the Americans to escape from Long Island, and then from Manhattan Island, on the southern end of which New York City then stood. Still hesitating, Howe go Revolution. [Chap. occupied the whole of the following autumn and early winter in driving one part of the American army up the Hudson, and the other part across the Delaware. Then, instead of following up Washington's diminishing and poorly-equipped forces, he placed his fine army in winter-quarters extending from the Hudson to the Delaware, a distance in a straight line of some seventy-five miles! This was Washington's opportunity, and well he improved it. Crossing the Delaware on Christmas night, 1776, with about twenty-four hundred men, he marched through of'^Tr^enton"^^ storm and cold to Trenton. At daybreak he surprised the Hessian detachment stationed there, capturing nearly one thousand men — one hundred and fifty more making good their escape. This sudden and deci- sive return of the offensive saved the Revolution, which, at that moment, seemed about to perish from inanition. Cornwallis, with a strong force, was immediately sent against the Americans. Outwitting him, Washington fought a sharp action at Princeton and gained the high lands of New Jersey. His presence there compelled Howe to abandon his distant outposts and to keep his army within supporting distance from New York. The British plan of campaign for 1777 was quite elaborate „. , , — including two distinct movements, one for the Plan of the ° Campaign of capture of Philadelphia, and the other for the oc- '^^^" cupation of the line of Lake Champlain and the Hudson River, thus separating New England from the other colonies. The former operation was successfully carried out. Howe, commanding in person, carried a strong army on ship- board to the Chesapeake, and thus approached Philadelphia in the rear of its defences. Washington opposed him at the crossing of Brandywine Creek, which empties into Delaware Bay some distance below Philadelphia; but his position was turned and he was obliged to abandon the city to the British. Later, when a good opportunity offered itself, he surprised a III.] Campaign of 1777. 91 large detachment of the British army at Germantown; but here again, owing mainly to misfortune, he was unsuccessful. Re- tiring up the Schuylkill River to Valley Forge, a strong position among the hills, the American army passed a terrible winter. But there they were drilled by Steuben and his subordinates until the Continental Line became an admirable force. The execution of the other portion of the campaign was intrusted to Burgoyne. It had been intended that Howe should co-operate with him from New c^pli'gn.^ ^ York. The story is related, however, that the orders to that effect reached New York too late, owing to Lord George Germaine having placed them in a pigeon-hole that he might attend a garden-party. At all events, Howe went south, leaving Clinton at New York with too weak a force to succour Burgoyne. At the other end of the line Sir Guy Carleton, the British commander in Canada, felt aggrieved at not having command of this expedition, and placed many obstacles in Burgoyne' s way. That general, after crossing the Canadian boundary, enjoyed a brief period of success. Driving the Americans under St Clair before him, he reached the portage between Lakes Champlain and George and the Hudson River without serious opposition. From that point the expedition was one series of misfortunes. Burgoyne occupied fifty days in marching seventy miles through the wilderness, the delay giving the New Englanders time to drop their ploughs, seize their muskets, and march to the Hudson. The British reached the river with diminished supplies. To replenish them in part and, also, to secure mounts for his cavalrymen, he sent five hundred dismounted German dragoons with a few loyalists and some Indians to Bennington, not far toward the east. It is probable that Burgoyne was led into this error by too implicit a reliance on a statement to the effect that numerous loyalists were waiting in the vicinity of Bennington for the arrival of the king's troops in order to show their loyalty. Indeed, it seems '92 Revolution. [Chap. that Stark's shirt-sleeved farmers were at first mistaken for the promised loyalists. This was not the only time in the war that faith in the existence of loyalists cost the British heavy losses. A large minority, indeed, according to some /^^\ writers, a majority of the people, was still loyal to the king — in a half-hearted sort of way. These were, for the most part, men of moderate views, who preferred remaining neutral to fighting on either side. When forced to take sides, they probably took part against the king, as their radical neighbours were nearer at hand and better able to annoy them than were the king's forces. On the other hand, if the king had shown his power to protect them, they would have been on his side. Of course there were many loyalists who devoted their lives and their fortunes to the king's cause; but the great mass of that party simply desired to be let alone. The first detachment sent by Burgoyne was captured by Stark and his men from western Massachusetts and New Hampshire (Aug. i6, 1777), who sent a relieving force staggering back to the main army. There is something almost pitiable in the fate of these heavy-armed German dis- mounted dragoons thus sent to their death in a wilderness. At about the same time, another disaster befell Burgoyne on his other flank. With a strong body of light-armed troops, St Leger marched from Canada to co-operate with Burgoyne by the St Leger's ^ q£ l^skQ Ontario and the Mohawk River. Campaign. •' Guarding the portage between the lake and the river stood Fort Stanwix or Schuyler, near the site of the present town of Rome. St Leger laid siege to this post, and defeated a relieving force commanded by the gallant Herkimer at Oris- kany (Aug. 6, 1777); but on hearing that Arnold with a strong detachment was marching against him, St Leger abandoned the siege, and retreated in all haste to Canada. These two disasters deprived Burgoyne of his light troops and cavalry. III.] Burgoyne's Campaign. 93 Passing the Hudson, he pushed on and, advancing in three columns through a wilderness, he was suddenly ^^^ attacked with great fury by the Americans, led toga Conven- by Arnold and Morgan, at a clearing known as '°"' ^''''''' Freeman's Farm on the afternoon of September 19. Before he could get his army well in hand, the Americans retired to the main army under Gates. This general had superseded Schuyler, who was not trusted by the New Englanders. Gates had placed his army across the road, on Bemis Heights, where the hills come close to the river-bank. Burgoyne also placed his army in intrenchments. On October 7th a sharp battle was fought. The Americans, led by Arnold, who meantime had been dismissed from his command by Gates, penetrated the centre of the British line. That night Burgoyne retreated to Saratoga, but when he again reached the river he found a strong body of Americans posted on the other bank. Soon the left of the American line was extended and there was no alternative save surrender. On October 1 7th ( 1 7 7 7) the British laid down their arms and began their march to Boston. It would be well if the student could stop here. The Saratoga Convention stipulated that the British soldiers should embark on transports to be provided by their government, and should not serve again in North America until exchanged. Weakness or good-nature had induced Gates to grant these terms. The convention was not carried out in good faith by either party to it. The public property was not given up by the British, and a demand for a descriptive list of the prisoners drew from Burgoyne some ill-advised words, to the effect that the con- vention had been broken by the Americans.- These things, trifling in themselves, may be held, in some slight degree, to justify the Continental Congress in its refusal to ratify the convention. The real reason, however, for that action seems to have been a natural fear on the part of the French govern- ment lest the "convention troops" should be used against 94 Revolution. [Chap. them in Europe. On moral grounds this action of Congress cannot be defended, but legally it was justifiable. The French monarchy now decided to take an active part against England in alliance with the Americans. Alliance, Jan.- In 1 7 76, Silas Dcane, Arthur Lee, and Benjamin ■ '^^ ■ Franklin arrived in Paris as commissioners from the United States. The French government, welcoming a chance to injure Great Britain, lent the Americans money and sold them arms, munitions of war, and other military equip- ment. The transaction was somewhat clumsily disguised under the form of a business negotiation with a supposed Spanish mercantile firm whose only partner was Beaumarchais,'the play- wright. The plot was suspected by Lord Stormont, then British Ambassador at Paris, and the French government felt obliged to elude hisvigilance by placing obstacles in the way of the trans- portation of these supplies from the French arsenals to America. As an offset to the extra expense thus incurred, a million francs was placed in Beaumarchais's hands. The supplies procured in this roundabout way were of the greatest assistance to the Americans. Further than this, the French seemed unwilling to go. But when the great victory at Saratoga became known at Paris, all obstacles were removed. France recognized the independence of the United States, and (1778) concluded with the Americans treaties of commerce and of eventual alliance in case Great Britain should begin hostilities against her old rival. The announcement of her action was communicated to the British government in a manner inviting war, and Great Britain at once declared war against France. Lord Chatham proposed to withdraw the armies from America, win back the affection of the Americans, and together combat the Bourbon power. It is possible that in his hands such a policy might have succeeded. The king, however, refused to appoint him prime minister, suggesting that, perhaps, he might take office under Lord North ! That minister proposed to abandon III.] The French Alliance and Monmouth. 95 nearly all the points in dispute, provided the Americans would yield on the question of independence. But the concessions came too late. The war continued, but from this time on, the British assumed the defensive in the North. Clinton, Howe's successor, decided to abandon Phila- delphia and to march overland to New York. ^ Battle of Washington, on his part, determined to attack Monmouth, him while on the way. At Monmouth the two ^""^' ^^^^" armies came together. The destined commander of the American advance was Lafayette, but Washington against his will was obliged to confide it to Charles Lee, who had recently returned from captivity, and claimed it by right of seniority. Lee lost control of his men, withdrew them in disorder, and a disaster seemed imminent, when Washington reached the front. Sending Lee to the rear in disgrace, he re-established the battle. The British held the field, but retired during the night. This was the last serious engagement in the North. The British sent marauding expeditions along the coast, which only served uselessly to exasperate the inhabitants, and there were a few partial engagements, and one brilliant affair, the assault of Stony Point, by the Light Infantry under Anthony Wayne. The treason of Benedict Arnold, however, nearly brought disaster to the American cause, and resulted in the lamentable death of an agreeable young man, John Andre. Benedict Arnold, the hero of Quebec and Saratoga, was now in command of the most important magazine Arnold and and stronghold on the American side. West Point Andre, 1779. on the Hudson River. Burdened with debt and disaffected at the ungenerous treatment he had received at the hands of the Congress, Arnold had for some time meditated treason. He asked for the command of West Point that he might surrender something of value. Dishonourable himself, he was afraid to trust others, and demanded a personal interview with Clinton's agent, his aide-de-camp Major Andre. The interview, begun g6 RevoliLtio7i. [Chap. outside the American lines, was concluded within them, whither Andr6, unsuspecting danger, had been led by Arnold. He passed them again in disguise, under an assumed name, and was captured between the lines with compromising papers concealed in his boots. His status was inquired into by a court appointed by Washington, and on its report that he was a spy, he was executed as such. Into the legal aspects of the case it is unnecessary to enter here. The arguments on both sides are admirably set forth in the text and notes of Sir Sherstone Baker's edition of Halleck's International Law. It may be said here that Lord Mahon's description of the Court of Inquiry does not bear a careful examination. He stigma- tizes Nathanael Greene, who presided over the court, as ignorant of Vattel and Puffendorf, and as having " no light of study." As a matter of fact, there was no man in America who probably knew more about the usages of war than Nathan- ael Greene. Vattel was a book much read by the American leaders of that time, and the idea that Greene *' had no light of study " cannot be admitted for a moment, when we re- member his conversations with Steuben about the Latin poets. Lord Mahon concedes that Steuben, another member of the court, probably knew the usages of war, but adds that he could not speak English, while his colleagues could speak neither German nor French. He says, furthermore, that Lafayette, a third member of the court, though holding high rank in the French army, was only twenty-three years of age, and had not made good use of his opportunities at College. Surely Lafayette, who wrote and spoke English correctly, could have interpreted to his colleagues the sage observations of Steuben. As for Arnold, he received early notice of Andre's capture and escaped to New York (Sept. 1779). The whole interest of the war now centres in the South. Clinton probably felt that it was unwise to attempt any further offensive movements in the North with the inadequate III.] Arnold and Andre. 97 force then at his disposal; or, indeed, with any force which the British government could place in America. ^, ,„ ° ^ The War in He seems to have believed in the existence of the south, a large loyalist population in the South; and ^778-80. there was some foundation for this opinion, as the two parties were evenly balanced in some parts of that section, especially in the newly-settled portions of the Carolinas and Georgia. At all events, in the autumn of 1778, preparations for a cam- paign in the South were rapidly pushed forward. Two years earlier (1776), Clinton had commanded the land forces in an attack on Charleston, South Carolina, which had ended in failure, partly because the army had been unable to co-operate with the navy at the critical moment. It was now proposed to gain a foothold on the shores of the Savannah River first, and then to approach Charleston by land. The town of Savannah was captured in the winter of 1778-79, and maintained against a combined French and American force which laid siege to it the next year (1779). It was not until Clinton came South with a large army in 1780, that Charleston surrendered. The commander-in-chief was soon after obliged to return to New York to watch a large French army, under the Marquis de Rochambeau, which had landed at Newport in the summer of 1780. Cornwallis was left in command in the South, and he was ably seconded by Lord Rawdon, afterwards Marquis of Hastings, and Cornwallis' s successor as Governor-General of India. The British cavalry was commanded by Lieutenant- Colonel Sir Banastre Tarleton, who in after years showed his capacity for war by severe strictures on the Duke of Welling- ton's conduct as a military commander. These three officers evinced more enterprise than any other British commanders in the whole course of the war. Cornwallis rapidly overran South Carolina, routed Gates and a new American army near Camden (Aug. 16, 1780), and began the subjugation of North Carolina. Hearing of the existence of a large body of loyalists C. A. 7 98 Revolution. [Chap. in the interior settlements, he sent Colonel Ferguson, with his riflemen composed mainly of Northern loyalists, to beat up recruits in the settlements at the foot of the mountains, and also to disperse some parties of American troops reported to be in that region. The presence of this force at their very doors incited the hardy pioneers of Tennessee and Kentucky to take part in the war. Riding rapidly through the defiles of the mountains, these backwoodsmen suddenly appeared as if out of the clouds. Ferguson, hearing of their design, began his return march to join the main army. But it was too late. He was surrounded and surprised in his camp on King's Mountain (Oct. 7, 1780), losing his whole force and his own life at the same time; The pioneers, having dealt this severe blow, returned to their homes — almost as silently and suddenly as they had emerged from them. Not long after, Nathanael Greene took command of the American forces in the South. Dividing his Greene s _ '-' _ Southern Small army, he stationed himself next the main Campaigns. ^^^^ ^^ Cornwallis's right flank, and sent his able lieutenant Daniel Morgan, the hero of many hard-fought contests, with a thousand men to threaten Cornwallis's left flank. Morgan's advance became so threatening that Corn- wallis detached Tarleton with a well-equipped force of one thousand men to drive him back. He then put the main army in motion to cut off Morgan's retreat and prevent him from joining Greene. Tarleton found Morgan's army at the Cowpens with its back to a deep river (Jan. 17, 1781). Urging his men forward, without waiting to deploy, he rushed at the Americans, In a few minutes his force, with the exception of perhaps two hundred men, was killed, wounded, or captured, Tarleton himself barely escaping. Without losing a moment, Morgan began his retreat, eluded Cornwallis, and sent his prisoners to Virginia for safe keeping. These two disasters at King's Mountain and the Cowpens deprived Cornwallis of III.] Greene s Southern Campaign. 99 nearly all his light troops. Realizing the seriousness of his position, he burned his train and all but his most necessary supplies, and started in pursuit of Morgan's force, now com- manded by Greene. Then followed one of the most interest- ing movements in the annals of the war. For days the two opposing forces seemed to be marching almost as one. In the end, Greene united the two wings of his army and retired across the River Dan into Virginia. Hastily gathering recruits he recrossed that river and placed his army in a very strong position at Guilford Court House, and there was fought one of the most fiercely contested battles of the war (March 15, 1781). Cornwallis won, as Greene retired from the field. Another such "victory," as Charles James Fox exclaimed, would ruin the British army. Leaving his wounded to the care of the Americans, Cornwallis marched to Wilmington, to recruit the strength of his soldiers and replenish his equipment. The interior of North Carolina was abandoned and Greene marched southward to the succour of the people of South Carolina. In that state, too, he lost several battles, but he compelled the evacuation of all the posts in the interior of South Carolina and Georgia. By the winter of 1781, Savannah and Charleston alone remained in the hands of the British. They, too, were abandoned in December, 1782. Few commanders have had a more difficult problem to solve than that which confronted Cornwallis at ^ „. , CornwaUis s Wilmington. The real objective in the Carolinas Plan of Cam- was Greene and his thousand regulars. But that p^'^"- general was already far away on his march to South Carolina. Cornwallis might have followed him; but the easiest and quickest way to reach him would be to go by water to Charleston. From that seaport Cornwallis could march to Camden and begin the campaign anew. He decided, how- ever, to proceed northward to Virginia. The precise reasons which led Cornwallis to adopt this new plan of campaign are 7—2 lOO Revolution. [Chap. not known. He may have thought that Rawdon with three thousand men could baffle Greene. Perhaps he realized the great difficulty of conquering and holding such a sparsely settled country as the Carolinas. We know that he deemed the conquest of the South impracticable as long as Virginia was in American hands. He, therefore, for these or other reasons, determined on the conquest of that commonwealth. There was a small British army there already, commanded by Phillips and the traitor Arnold. Cornwallis thought that by combining these troops with his own he would be stronger than any army the Americans could place in the field against him. Phillips died before Cornwallis reached Petersburg. The latter would have nothing to do with Arnold, and sent him back to New York. There was at that moment a small American army in Virginia, for Washington had sent Lafayette and Corn- with one division of the Light Infantry to wa IS, 17 I. capture Arnold. The great advantages which the topography of Virginia offers to the defending army have been noted above, and will be described at length when we come to the campaigns of 1861-65. It is enough to say here that Cornwallis and Lafayette with their respective armies marched up into the country and then marched down to the seaboard again. Cornwallis went into summer-quarters at Ports- mouth, and later, removed to Yorktown, which he strongly fortified, in obedience, as he thought, to Clinton's orders. Lafayette encamped some miles away near the junction of the Mattapony and Pamunkey Rivers; and this was the position of affairs in September, 1781. The French alliance had produced few advantages to the Americans up to that time. It had necessitated Siege of /^ Yorktown, the evacuation of Philadelphia by the British; ^^ ^' but the attempts of D'Estaing, in conjunction with American armies, to capture Newport and Savannah had both ended in failure. In the summer of 1780 Rochambeau, III.] TJie York town Campaign. lOi with some six thousand excellent troops, had landed at Newport, which had previously been abandoned by the British. The fleet which brought him over had been immediately blockaded by a British squadron, and for a whole year the French army had remained idle at Newport to protect the shipping. Their presence there had been a source of great profit to the farmers of Southern New England, as they consumed large quantities of vegetables and provisions, paying therefor in specie. In the early summer of 1781, De Grasse, the French naval com- mander in the West Indies, sent word that he would sail north- ward with his whole fleet in July or August. Washington was anxious to use this force to capture New York; but De Grasse refused to cross the bar outside that harbour and suggested that some joint operation in Virginia might be possible. The capture of Cornwallis was therefore determined on. Masking their movements so completely that Clinton considered the siege of New York as begun, the allied armies marched past New York and through Philadelphia to the head of Chesapeake Bay, while the French fleet at Newport made good its escape and anchored in Chesapeake Bay without having met a British ship. Meantime De Grasse, sailing northward, entered the bay on the same day on which the allied armies approached the northern end of it. The British admiral in the West Indies was Sir George Rodney. He entertained a strong dislike to Clinton, and instead of following De Grasse with his whole fleet, he sent a small squadron under Hood to reinforce the British naval force at New York. The British and French fleets fought an indecisive action which obliged the British to return to New York for repairs — De Grasse returning to the entrance of Chesapeake Bay. The control of the sea was thus for a few weeks in the hands of the allies. Besieged by more than double his own numbers and without hope of immediate succour, Cornwallis,' on Oct. 17th, 1781, four years to a day from the surrender of Burgoyne, asked for terms of capitula- 102 RevohLtion. [Chap. tion, and two days later the British army, some seven thousand strong, laid down its arms. This disaster brought about the fall of the North Ministry, and the recognition by Great Britain of the independence of the United States. The king was now forced to summon the opposition to The Peace ofifice and to coufide the government to the Negotiations, Marquis of Rockiugham, Lord Shelburne, Mr '^ ^~ ^' Charles James Fox and their followers who had opposed his policy in regard to both America and England. Shelburne and Fox, the two Secretaries of State, were the most important men in the new cabinet, managing home and colonial and foreign affairs respectively. Shelburne was a man of fair abilities but he was burdened with an unfortunate rep- utation for trickery and double-dealing. Of the many acts of bad faith with which he was charged, none was more serious than the "pious fraud " he was said to have committed against Henry Fox, the first Lord Holland, and father of his colleague Charles James Fox. Shelburne and Dr Franklin had been good friends before the war, and the former, sincerely desirous of bringing hostilities with America to a speedy termination, sent a messenger to Paris to inquire of Franklin upon what terms the Americans would consent to a cessation of hostilities. This matter coming to the ears of Fox greatly incensed him, for he deemed the negotiations with the United States as an independent nation to be within his province as Foreign Secretary. Shelburne maintained, on the contrary, that as in- dependence would be granted in the treaty the conduct of the negotiations belonged to him. Fox seized the opportunity afforded by Rockingham's death in July, 1782, to resign in company with Mr Burke and his other friends. Shelburne then became Prime Minister and the negotiations proceeded without causing any more friction in the cabinet. At Paris, affairs did not go so smoothly. The three American Com- missioners, who conducted this negotiation, were Dr Franklin, III.] The Peace Negotiatiofis, 1782-83. 103 John Adams, and John Jay. The last named was especially accredited to Spain. While at Madrid, he became convinced that the Bourbon governments were desirous of continuing the war in the interests of Spain, hoping, among other things, to recover Gibraltar. He also discovered that they were anxious to restrict the limits of the United States with a view to keep- ing the new republic as far removed from Spain's American possessions as possible. He thus suspected the good faith of France. Franklin, however, believed in the good intentions of the French government toward the United States, and pointed out that the instructions to the Commissioners required them to take no important step without the knowledge of that government. The treaty of alliance also forbade either party to make a separate peace with Great Britain. In addition. Jay insisted that the British government must negotiate with the Americans as representatives of an independent power. At this juncture, the British authorities placed in Jay's hands what purported to be a letter from Barbe-Marbois, Secretary of the French legation at Philadelphia, to his government, protesting against the Americans continuing to enjoy the rights to the fisheries which they had enjoyed as colonists. Jay sent an Englishman then in Paris to warn Shelburne of the machi- nations of the French government. At that moment there seems to have been an agent of Vergennes at London who had been sent to communicate to the British government the views of the Bourbon powers. Shelburne saw that now, if ever, was the time to conclude a separate treaty with the United States, and he waived all questions of form. At this juncture John Adams arrived in Paris from Holland, where he had been negotiating a loan. He agreed with Jay, and the two forming a majority of the Commission, they voted to break their in- structions and to come to an agreement with England without the knowledge of France. The preliminary articles, which should form a definitive treaty whenever a general settlement 104 RevohUion. [Chap. should be made, were signed on November 30th, 1782, the definitive treaty not being concluded until some nine months later, September 3rd, 1783. According to the American view, the Treaty of 1783 was in the nature of a partition of the British Empire. oi^X^"^^^^^ It followed from this, that the articles which ex- tended the limits of the. new nation to the Mis- sissippi, defined them on the north, and gave rights to the ** fisheries" having once gone into operation could not be annulled by a subsequent war. The intention of the nego- tiators was undoubtedly to give to the United States the territory of the English colonies as it was understood to exist before the late acquisitions from France and Spain, limited, however, by the Mississippi on the West in accordance with the treaty of 1763. The northern limit was the southern limit of Canada, as laid down in the Proclamation of 1763; and the southern limit was the northern boundary of the Floridas, according to the same proclamation. These several boun- daries were described in the treaty with as much distinct- ness as was possible in the existing state of geographical knowledge. So imperfect was that knowledge that the last dispute arising under this instrument was not settled until sixty years later. Other provisions of the treaty gave rise to similar difficulties. Actual debts contracted before the war were to be considered as binding, but, as there was no central supreme court in the United States except for prize cases, this pro- vision was not enforced before the establishment of the government under the new Constitution. It was provided also that Congress should recommend to the several States the res- toration of property confiscated from the Loyalists. The " rec- ommendation " of Congress was duly made and proved to be entirely ineffective : the States paid no attention to it and Par- liament was obliged to care for the Royalists. Another clause obliged the British to evacuate all posts within the limits of the in.] The Treaty of Peace, 1783. 105 new nation, and to carry away no private property. Many slaves who had congregated at New York were carried away at the evacuation of that port. This was justified on the ground that places occupied by the British army were " English soil " in view of the famous decision of Lord Mansfield. It was also contended that when slaves or any other American property came within the British lines in time of war such prop- erty became British property. This controversy was never adjusted as Great Britain steadfastly refused to indemnify the Americans for their losses. The peace found the people of the United States in a far more prosperous condition than at first sight would seem possible. The total population had the War in increased some three hundred thousand in seven '"^"ca- years. Of all the States, only Rhode Island and Georgia showed a decrease in population. The principal reason for this prosperity is that while the war had continued for seven years in the country as a whole, active operations had been carried on in no one portion of it for more than three years. First New England, then the Middle States, and finally the South had in turn been the seat of war. Falmouth was the only town destroyed during the conflict, and Boston was the only large town that was pillaged to any serious extent. Nor was the presence of the British array at a permanent station like that of New York, for instance, a commercial injury to the people of the neighbourhood. The British soldiers re- quired provisions and generally paid good prices for what they bought. As we have seen, the same may be said of the French army — ^its presence was a benefit to Southern New England. Commerce was interrupted, but the tobacco crop, then the most valuable single crop, was sent to market, though in a roundabout way. Agriculture does not seem to have been seriously interfered with, and agriculture was the most important industry of the country. Historians seem to have io6 Revolution. [Chap. hi. overlooked the part played by the American privateers-men. It has been stated, though on what authority is not clear, that as many Americans were engaged on the water as were in the armies on land, and we know from the rise in insurance at "Lloyds" that they must have been fairly successful in their pursuit. It should also be stated, that many manufacturing industries were established and profitably carried on during the war. The great depreciation in the currency has been often adverted to as showing the disastrous effect of the war on the people of the new States. But there is another side to this also. There were then few persons in the United States who depended upon the proceeds of invested funds. Most of the people lived on the proceeds of their own labour either on their own farms or as servants and slaves on the farms of their masters. The possession of more than a very small sum of money was unknown to the great mass of the people. Further- more, the depreciation of the currency was gradual and spread out over many transactions. It was really in the nature of a tax, and was the only tax which the people could be induced to pay. At all events, large quantities of specie were exported from the United States in the years immediately following the war. This was to pay for goods with which short-sighted English merchants and equally short-sighted American consignees glutted the markets of the country. This avalanche of British manufactures put an end for the time to American manu- facturing, and induced the people to contract debts which they could not pay. Then real suffering ensued. All sorts of ques- tionable expedients were resorted to. Repudiation of obliga- tions, inter-state conflicts, and local rebellions became the rule. The years 1783-88 have well been called "the critical period " in the history of the United States. But, perhaps the suffering of those years was necessary to "extort," as John Adams said, " the Constitution from the grinding necessities of a reluctant people." CHAPTER IV. THE CONSTITUTION. It has been noted in an earlier chapter how the particularist tendencies of the people of the several colonies „ . . •■^ ^ Beginning had prevented all the pre-revolutionary plans of of "partic- union from consummation. At the beginning of " a"sm. the actual conflict, it seemed as if this obstacle to union had been overcome. Patrick Henry declared that government was dissolved and that the rebellious colonists were in a " state of nature." He proposed that colonial boundary lines should be disregarded, and that each hundred thousand persons should send one representative to Congress. At the time, however, no means existed of determining the population of the colonies. It was impossible to put any such scheme into execution, or even to apportion the representation in Congress among the several States. Congress was obliged to fall back on the familiar local organizations, and give to each colony one vote. If an accurate enumeration had been practicable, it is probable that representation would have been arranged according to population or wealth, or upon some combination of population and wealth. Had this been done at that time, the subsequent history of the United States might — in all likelihood it would — have been very different from what it actually has been. Historical students generally lament this decision of the First 107 I08 The Constittitioit. [Chap. Continental Congress. They regard the particularism of a later day as unfortunate, for they are familiar with the evils which have resulted from the State-rights theories, and are given to attribute to particularism many evils which were the result of the prevalence of slave-labour in the South and of free labour in the North. But it may well be that the salvation of the country has been due to the strong local pride which prevails among its citizens and to their dislike of centralization. At the outset of the conflict the Continental Congress assumed and exercised many of the functions of sovereignty, and the people acquiesced in this assumption of authority. For example, Congress raised, equipped, and maintained armies; sent and received all diplomatic agents; and contracted debts for national purposes. In the earlier years of the Revolutionary War, the State ^, ^ governments were formed, in compliance, it is The States ° . and the Con- truc, with the advice of Congress. As time federation. -^^Qxit ou and the first feeling of enthusiasm gave way to a sense of depression, the people of the several States turned to their respective local governments as representing the old order of things and as the organizations with which they had the most to do and over which they exercised the most effective control. The central authority of Great Britain, which had bound them together, no longer acted as arbiter or pro- tector. They determined to replace it by a central authority having such powers as they maintained the British government had possessed and no more. By the Articles of Confedera- tion, therefore, they limited the functions of the national government — the United States in Congress Assembled — and gave it no coercive power whatever. The Articles of Confederation, as the frame of government for the union was called, were elaborated by a The Articles . of Confedera- committee of the Congress, appointed m June, ^'°"- 1776. They were not completed until Novem- IV.] The Land Cessions. 109 ber, 1777. By that time, the reaction towards particularism was well advanced. Three years elapsed before the articles were ratified by the States, and they did not come into force until March, 1781. The successful prosecution of the war would have been very difficult had Congress been earlier limited in its authority. As it happened, the impulse given by the old Congress, feeble though it was, carried the country through the Yorktown campaign. The causes of this delay must be described at some length, because, as an indirect result of it, the United States as a whole became the owner of a large tract of land, the possession of which necessarily made strongly for nationalism. In 1783 Great Britain ceded to the United States the territory between the Alleghanies and the Missis- q^. .^ ^^ sippi. Even before the cession and regardless the National of historical facts and legal theories, several on^^'"- States put forth pretensions to an exclusive right to large portions of this vast domain. Many of these claims over- lapped, Virginia's claim covering those of three other States. They were based on the old colonial charters, all but one of which had been annulled, and on other grounds. Connecticut, whose charter had been annulled and afterwards re-confirmed, claimed a large territory west of the settlements on the Hudson. Massachusetts based her claim to western lands on the charter of 1691, which had been suspended by Parliament in 1774. The Carolinas claimed lands under the charters of 1663 and 1665, notwithstanding the fact that the king had bought out seven of the eight proprietors in 1721. Georgia claimed under her charter of 1732, which had been surrendered to the Crown in 1 75 1, and under a further grant contained in the Proclama- tion of 1763. Virginia's claim was based on her charters of 1606, 1609, and 1612, which had all been annulled in 1624, since which time she had been a royal province. The king had even granted some of the land within her charter limits, no The Constitution. [Chap. to the proprietors of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Carolina. The western portion of Virginia under the charters he had dis- posed of by the Proclamation of 1763. Of all these claims, that of New York alone had no relation to royal grants. The Six Nations, or the League of the Iroquois, had submitted to the governor of New York as representative of the king. New York now asserted that the submission had been made to the colony of New York and that the State of that name was entitled to all the lands over which the Iroquois had ever exercised dominion. This territory included nearly all the land beween the Alleghanies and the Mississippi north of the Ohio, and some land south of that river. Virginia also claimed the lands lying north of the Ohio by right of conquest, the British posts in that region having been captured by an expedition organized and paid for by Virginia. It will be noticed that no State seemed to regard the Quebec Act as binding. Nor did any State pay the slightest heed to the Proclamation of 1763, except Georgia, and that only as the Proclamation added to her territory. Yet it must be conceded that all the lands claimed under the charters except perhaps those claimed by Connecticut and Massachusetts had reverted to the Crown years before. Six States — Maryland, Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island — could assert no title whatever to western lands unless as a part of the common property of the United States. Maryland was most seriously affected by the demands of the claimant States', Virginia, her southern neighbour, had already granted lands west of the mountains and proposed to liquidate her war debts and pension her soldiers by other similar grants. Mary- land, having no such fund at her disposal, would be obliged to raise money by taxation to satisfy the just demands of her creditors and of her veterans. It seemed not improbable that under these circumstances large numbers of Marylanders would emigrate to Virginia, and that the former State would become rv.] The Articles of Confederation. iir impoverished. Maryland, therefore, refused to ratify the Arti- cles of Confederation unless the States claiming lands should cede their claims to the United States. After a long delay, New York, whose title was of the weakest kind, ceded it to the United States. Maryland then, trusting in the goodwill of the other States, ratified the Articles. The claimant States slowly, making as good bargains as possible for themselves, ceded the lands to which they regarded themselves as entitled — Georgia's cession in 1801 being the last. In this way came into being the '' national domain," whose administration almost necessitated the continuance of a national government. The Articles of Confederation, thus brought into operation, have seldom received due consideration at the hands of historical writers. They have always of the Articles been considered from the point of view of the °^ Confedera- 1 -1 tion. Constitution which came later. The Articles should be considered from the more historical standpoint of what went before. They formed an essential step in the his- torical process by which the American people emerged from the colonial stage and formed itself into a nation. The Articles were drafted by men who had regarded the British Empire as a federative union, with the loosest possible bond of union in the shape of a helpless executive. They sought to reproduce such a federation with a representative executive instead of a king. Such a form of government was impossible, but experience was necessary to convince the American people of the impossibility. The new union was in no sense a legislative union like that of England and Scotland in 1707. It resembled _j^ r ct rof more the old union of those kingdoms through the new a chief magistrate, only in this case the chief 2°^='""'"^" • magistrate was a body of men. It might well be termed, therefore, an executive union. The colonies had been united under a common executive, the British king — at least that was 112 TJie Constitution. [Chap. the theory. They replaced him by a Congress composed of delegates from the several States, each State having one vote and the assent of nine States being necessary for the trans- action of important business. Congress furthermore was de- signed to act as arbiter in disputes between the several States. The Congress had almost no legislative power, no power to lay taxes, nor to regulate commerce with foreign powers or between the States. It could recommend legislation to the States and make requisitions for money. On paper its execu- tive powers were ample. To it belonged, for instance, the determination of war and peace, the regulation of the monetary standard, and the right to coin money. It also could exercise an admiralty jurisdiction; and treaties made by Congress were to be a part of the supreme law of the land. The weak point in the scheme was the absence of a sanction. Congress had no coercive power over individuals; it could act on individuals only through the State governments, and it had no power to coerce a State. Congress determined how much money should be raised for national purposes, and apportioned the amount among the States. It could not compel a State to pay one dollar; nor could it raise one dollar by an Act of Congress. The next few years demonstrated the viciousness of this system, and accordingly it was swept away and a strong con- solidated government established in its stead. Nevertheless, the establishment of the Confederation under these defective articles was an event of the very greatest importance. It was possible for the people in 1777-81 to have established thirteen distinct governments, the inhabitants of each State forming a nation. The establishment of any central government, power- less though that government may have been, was one of those steps which never can be retraced. The lines of development were then marked out in the direction of nationality. It may be asked how it happened that the control of the national domain remained in the hands of the United States. IV.] The Ordinance of I'j^'j. 113 Why was not the territory acquired from Great Britain and the claimant States parcelled out among the States according to population or in some other ratio? In the first place, it would have been exceedingly dififi- Domain.^ '°"^ cult, perhaps impossible, to have made a divi- sion which would have been at all satisfactory. Moreover the people really seem to have had some consciousness of nationality. The United States was merely one portion split off from the British Empire. In the old empire the title to and the administration of ungranted lands was in the Crown. It was natural, therefore, that in the new republic the joint executive which succeeded to the other functions of the Crown should inherit this function also. It will be convenient to here trace the further history of this subject. By the autumn of 1784, all the States claiming lands to the north and west of the Ohio River had ceded their claims to the United States with certain excep- nance 0/1787. tions, as in the cases of Connecticut and Virginia. Congress at that time passed an Ordinance, mainly the work of Jefferson, providing for the ultimate formation of several gro- tesquely named States, as Polypotamia and Assenisippia. The Ordinance also contained a clause forbidding slavery in all the western territory after 1800. In 1787 the matter was taken up in earnest, owing to the persistence of a New England land and emigration company, which was unable to induce settlers to go to the new country unless they and their descendants should first be guaranteed full civil rights there. Congress, in compliance with this demand, although plainly nowhere vested with any such constitutional power, passed the well-known Ordinance of 1787, which was confirmed by the first Congress under the Constitution. With the exception of the Declaration of Independence and the Federal Constitution, no political instrument has produced more important results for the United States than has this Ordinance. As new terri- C. A. 8 114 '^^^^ Constittition. [Chap. tory has been organized this Ordinance with the occasional exception of the clause forbidding slavery has been the basis of the territorial organization. The Ordinance of 1787 pro- vided a temporary government for the Territory North-west of the River Ohio by officials appointed by Congress. As soon as the settlers in the new territory should number five thousand, a representative legislature should be elected; and the people of the territory might send a delegate to Congress who, however, should have no vote in that body. Provision was made for the ultimate formation of six States out of the territory and they were to be admitted to the Union, on a footing of com- plete equality with the original States. The people of each State should frame a constitution for that State, which must be republican in form and receive the approval of Congress. The settlers who should go to the new territory were guaranteed civil rights, as, for instance, the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus, trial by jury, bail, and free representation in the legislature. The legislature was forbidden to make any laws impairing the obli- gation of private contracts formed previous to the passage of such law. It was also provided that education should be encouraged and the Indians properly treated. The three most important provisions of the Ordinance, however, and those which have given it a place in history, are those providing for the equal distribution of the estates of intestates, prohibiting the molesta- tion of any person on account of his mode of worship or religious opinions, and forbidding absolutely and for ever slavery except as a punishment for crime — with a provision for the rendition of fugitive slaves. The precise meaning and binding force of the Ordinance and of its several parts are questions which have agitated courts, both State and national, legislatures, constitu- tional conventions, and congresses. It has been generally held that these guarantees were in the nature of a compact between the United States and the people of the new territory, and of the States formed from it, and could not be abrogated without IV.] The Ordinance of 1787. 115 the consent of all parties. At all events, the Ordinance pre- served freedom in the North-west. Furthermore, by the policy thus formulated, the American people, for the first time in the history of mankind, voluntarily promised to those who should form colonies in these new territories, equal rights with the inhabitants living in the older States. This promise has been rigidly adhered to, and thus the United States has grown, not by forming colonies according to the usual meaning attached to the phrase, but by absorbing into the Union States formed on the national domain. This process has disguised the fact that during the last century the United States has been the greatest and most successful colonizing power in the world. At the time of the ratification of the Articles, the complaints of the soldiers of the Revolutionary army were so ^ -' -' Congress and loud and threatening as seriously to menace the the Army, safety of the republic. The situation of the army ^^^ " ^' officers, and of the soldiers as well, was very distressing. They had abandoned their means of securing a livelihood and were serving their country for a compensation which did not cover their own personal expenses. The families of many of them were in great need. Under these circumstances, as early as 1778, large numbers of the officers of the Continental Line had either resigned their commissions or had threatened to resign. This wholesale change in the personnel of the company and regimental officers would have been disastrous. Washington interfered, and exerted himself to the utmost to secure the adoption by Congress of some scheme of half-pay for life or of pensions which might induce the officers to remain in the service. The people, as a whole, were very jealous of the army. Probably they feared it. At all events. Congress no sooner passed a vote favourable to the soldiers than public opinion compelled it to annul its vote. In the autumn of 1780, when the army seemed to be on the point of dissolution, the Continental Congress promised half-pay for life to those who 8—2 Ii6 The Constitution. [Chap. should serve until the end of the war. The first Congress of the Confederation repudiated this action upon the unworthy- pretext that nine States (the number required under the Articles) had not voted for it. The officers then offered to compromise by commuting the half-pay for life to full pay for seven years. This was the condition of affairs in March, 1783, when an anonymous address was published at Newburg on the Hudson, where the army was encamped, callings meeting to determine what measures should be taken to obtain justice. Washington, with great tact, averted the danger by calling another meeting. He there met the officers and induced them to intrust their affairs to him. Had Washington at that time spoken the word, there can be little doubt that he might have played the part of other great commanders in civil strife and made himself a king. But to a suggestion of that nature he replied in such a manner that it was never repeated. Congress was now induced to grant full pay for five years in money or in such promises to pay as other creditors of the Confederation received. Towards the end of the year the army was dis- banded, Washington bidding farewell to his officers on December 14th, 1783. This dispute as to half-pay had run to this dangerous ^^ ^. length because Congress had neither the means The Finances ° ° of the Con- to Satisfy the demands of the army nor any pros- federation, p^^^ ^j obtaining them. In 1783, the total debt of the United States was about forty millions of dollars, in- cluding nearly five millions due to the army. The annual interest on this debt amounted to nearly two and one-half millions. Of the total of forty millions, some eight millions were owed abroad to the French government and to other foreign governments and individuals. The interest on this portion of the debt was met by the proceeds of new loans contracted in Europe. The interest on the domestic debt, as that owed to Americans was called, was not paid at all. Between 1782 IV.]- Weakness of the Confederation. WJ and 1786, Congress made requisitions upon the States to the amount of six millions. Of this, only one million had been paid up to the end of 1786, At no time in the life of the Confederation was Congress able to pay the running ex- penses of the government. This was the defect in the Articles of Confederation which has attracted most attention. An attempt was made to remedy it before the Articles came into operation. At that time (1781) it was proposed to give Con- gress the right to levy duties on imports to the extent of five per cent, ad valorem. But this very moderate proposal fell through owing to the obstinacy of Rhode Island and the fickleness of Virginia. At another time (1783) the suggestion was made that Congress should be given power to levy certain duties, partly specific and partly ad valorem, to be collected by officials appointed by the States, but responsible to Congress. To this proposition the people also turned a deaf ear. The attention of the country had been called, however, to the fact that there was a national debt and that there was no national income. A government so weak at home was neither feared nor respected abroad. Great Britain, for example, immediately enforced against the people of the pj°^^^^^ United States all the restrictions of the pre-revo- lutionary commercial system. The United States was helpless. The central government had the power to conclude treaties, but it had no power to regulate commerce. There were no restrictions on trade which its agents could offer to abandon as the price of reciprocity; and the Congress could not, as foreign nations well knew, impose any such restrictions. Congress, therefore, was unable to conclude a commercial treaty with England. Nor had it the means to compel obedience to treaties already in existence. . . Congress made the recommendation as to the Loyalists in accordance with the Treaty of 1783. Instead of complying Ii8 The Constitution. [Chap. with it, the States seemed to vie with one another in imposing new hardships on Loyalists remaining in or returning to the United States. This was impolitic and unjust, with Gre^at but it was not an infraction of the treaty. The Britain and clause providing that no obstacles should be Spain. ^ ° placed in the way of the collection of debts contracted before the war was broken again and again, and the central government, having no coercive power, could not en- force the supremacy of the treaty over State laws. On the other hand, the British government infringed the treaty in two im- portant respects. First, the posts in the North-west were not surrendered to the United States but were retained together with the profitable fur trade which had grown up about themj and secondly, compensation for slaves taken away at the time of the evacuation of New York and Charleston was refused. Relations with Great Britain were in this unsatisfactory state when the government was organized under the Constitution. Against Spain also there was considerable complaint. That power refused to recognize the 31st parallel of latitude as the southern boundary of the United States, and maintained that Florida, which had been ceded back to her by Great Britain at the close of the war (1783), extended as far north as the Yazoo River (32° 30' N. L.) as that was the northern boundary of West Florida during the later years of the English domination. Nor would Spain recognize the right of the people of the new nation to the free navigation of the Mississippi. Spain held both sides of the river, not only at its mouth, but for more than two hundred miles inland. This was a serious matter for the United States, as the inhabitants of the new settlements in Tennessee and Kentucky, west of the Alleghanies, reached tide-water most conveniently by the Mississippi route. They threatened to, join Spain or Great Britain unless the United States could protect them in the enjoyment of their rights in the navigation of the Mississippi. At the time, this danger IV-] Financial Heresies. 119 seemed real and great; but it is not unlikely that it was unduly exaggerated. In 1784, the imports into the United States amounted in round numbers to three million seven hundred Financial thousand pounds sterling. The exports during heresies, the same year were estimated by the same au- ^^^^-Sy. thority at seven hundred and fifty thousand pounds sterling. The balance of three million pounds was paid by the exportation of specie. The country was soon drained of gold and silver and a cry arose throughout the land for inconvertible paper money. In spite of the terrible disasters which paper money had wrought within recent years all the States, with the exception of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Virginia, issued inconvertible paper money. The most extraordinary fruits of this vicious policy were seen in Rhode Island. In that little State, there was a sharp line of demarcation between the " town and country, " or better, perhaps, between those engaged in agricultural and those occupied in mercantile pursuits. The farmers were in the majority. They secured the passage of a law entitling an owner of land to receive paper money from the State in ex- change for a mortgage on his land equal to double the amount of the paper money received. The merchants refused to take the money from the first holder and it depreciated in a few months to one-sixth of its nominal value. Several expedients were then resorted to to secure its circulation. One act obliged all persons to accept this currency under penalty of disfranchise- ment, and a fine of one hundred pounds in case of refusal — the case to be tried without a jury, by judges annually appointed by the legislature. The merchants closed their doors rather than do business on these terms; and, to starve them into obedience, the farmers withheld the produce of their farms. In the case of Trevett against Weeden, one of the most famous in the history of the country, the question was brought before the courts, when the judges, to their honour be it said. I20 The ConstitiUion. [Chap. declared the law to be unconstitutional, and therefore null and void. Then it was proposed to oblige every one to take an oath to support the act or to lose all civil and political rights. But this was farther than the people of Rhode Island were willing to go, and the plan was abandoned. The tendency of paper money to depreciate could not fail to attract attention even at that time, and the signers of at least one petition pro- posed that the rate of depreciation should be regulated in advance by law. The only thing which in any wise justified this desire for paper currency was the state of the coinage — if it may be dignified by that name. All sorts of coins were in use, " joes, " fips, moidores, English and French guineas, bits, Ccfirrage*^ ^"^^ picayuncs, and especially, Spanish milled dol- lars, whose nominal value was about four shil- lings. These coins were for the most part old and light in weight. Perhaps the best evidence of the debased condition of the coinage is to be found in the fact that the government officials felt obliged to clip the good coins received from France, before paying them out to the soldiers and other creditors. Congress had power to coin money under the Articles of Confederation, but it had no funds with which to buy bullion or to erect and operate a mint. It could, however, obtain reports from its administrative officers and committees of its own body. After several schemes had been brought to its notice, Jefferson, as chairman of a com- mittee to whom a plan propounded by Gouverneur Morris had been referred, made an elaborate report upon which the existing monetary system of the United States is founded. Jefferson proposed that a dollar of the value of the Spanish milled dollar should be the unit of value, and that the decimal system should be used in its division — each dollar containing one hundred cents. Morris had proposed a much more minute subdivision, and the large value of the cent was the weak point IV.] Inter-State Conflicts, \']%^-ZZ. I2I in Jefferson's scheme. This report was made in 1786. Noth- ing was done in the matter at the time, but the later coinage was based on the recommendations of this committee. It may be mentioned, as showing the conservatism of the Ameri- can people, that the price of goods is still estimated in some of the older towns at so many shillings and pence. The real cause of the downfall of the Confederation and the establishment of "a more perfect union" was not, however, any of the inconveniences above The Cnticai ' ' ■' f eriod. noted. It is rather to be found in the conviction which gained ground rapidly in 1786-87 that the several States could not long continue on the existing basis without civil war. This conviction was forced on the people by a commercial war already in progress between several members of the Confed- eration, and also by a determination to resist the payment of debts, by force if necessary, which was shown by the people of some sections of the country. As each State managed its own commercial relations, it was natural that in a period of great distress the people of each State should try to protect their own interests, even at the expense of other members of the Con- federation. Two examples will best illustrate this point. To protect the vegetable growers of New York from the competition of the market-gardeners of New Jersey, the New York legislature passed an act levying duties on all vegetables brought into the State, and obliging New Jersey vessels to enter and clear as vessels from London and other foreign ports were obliged to do. New Jersey, in retaliation, levied a tax of three hundred and sixty ^oun^?, per annum on a lighthouse which New York had erected at Sandy Hook, which was within the limits of New Jersey. Another instance of the same inter-state rivalry was to be seen in the relations of Massachusetts and Connecticut. To protect her shipping and manufacturing interests Massa- chusetts passed a severe navigation act designed to keep English goods and traders out of that State. Connecticut thereupon 122 TJie Constitution. [Chap. repealed every trade law on her statute book, thereby inviting foreign trade to her harbours and, owing to the facilities of overland smuggling, completely frustrated the policy of Massa- chusetts. The other cause, which forced on the conviction above- mentioned, was the determined opposition to Shays'sRe- ^^ payment of debts which now manifested bellion, 1786-87. ^ ■> itself in the Carolinas and in Massachusetts. The latter State was for the moment at the mercy of the worst elements of her population. It is a curious fact that all the small rebellions in the history of the United States have been the work of the tillers of the soil and not of the rabble of the towns. This may be accounted for by the fact that the au- thorities of the towns, being better provided with facilities for quelling disturbances, can crush an insurrection before it passes the mob stage. At any rate, the rebellion at this time (1786-87) was the work of the inhabitants of the thinly settled western portion of Massachusetts. Led by Daniel Shays, these men prevented the holding of the courts at Worcester. Had it not been for the prompt vigour displayed by Governor Bowdoin and General Lincoln, the movement might have assumed formidable proportions. As it was, the intrinsic im- portance of Shays's Rebellion was entirely overshadowed by the tremendous effect it produced on the public mind. It brought the nation to its senses, and made the formation of a strong government possible. The chain of events, which led to the holding of the Federal Convention, well illustrates, however, upon what extraneous circumstances the fate of nations sometimes depends. The southern boundary of Maryland, according to the „, ., charter of 16^2, was the southern bank of the The Alexan- •-' ^ driaandAn- Potomac Rivcr, from its mouth to its source, ventions,°"' That frontier was chosen probably with a view 1785-86. tQ securing important advantages to Maryland, rv.] Shays' s Rebellion. 123 whose grantee had great influence at the court of the first Charles. It may also have been supposed that disputes about the navigation of the river would be less likely to arise if the control of the navigation of the Potomac was in the hands of one colony. As the event showed, the arrange- ment offered unusual advantages to the illicit trader. This gave rise to incessant disputes and aroused great irritation among the people of Virginia who were much more interested in the navigation of the river than were the Marylanders, as the commerce of Maryland was mainly carried on through Balti- more. In 1785, through the efforts of Madison and Jefferson, commissioners from the two States met at Alexandria in Virginia to frame, if possible, regulations for the use of the river. They soon adjourned to Mount Vernon, Washington's mansion near Alexandria. Their discussions inevitably ex- tended to the desirability of similar navigation laws and customs duties for all the States bordering on Chesapeake Bay. They therefore submitted a supplementary report suggesting the ap- pointment of a joint commission every second year to consider and report on these and kindred topics. Washington's part in this proposal is not known; but he certainly approved of it. At that moment the people of the Middle States were disturbed by the commercial outlook. The Maryland Assembly adopted the plan and invited Pennsylvania and Delaware to join in appointing commissioners. In Virginia, the scheme encoun- tered fierce opposition. Finally, however, a resolution was passed inviting all the States to send delegates to a convention to consider the trade and commerce of the United States as a whole. This convention met at Annapolis in 1786. Only five States were represented and no New England or southernmost States were among them. Instead of proceeding with the business for which the convention had been summoned, the delegates passed a resolution providing for a convention to amend the Articles of Confederation to be held at Philadelphia in the next year, 124 '^^^^ ConstiUttion. [Chap. 1787. To this new convention Virginia at once appointed delegates. Five other States, including Pennsylvania, also appointed their representatives before Congress could "bring itself to approve the plan and to recommend the States to elect delegates. On the day that Congress passed this vote, Massachusetts joined Virginia and the other five States in appointing delegates. The other States now rapidly came into line, Rhode Island alone refusing to be represented in the convention. The Federal Convention met at Philadelphia, May 25th, „, „ 1787, and held daily sessions, with brief adjourn- Convention, ments to facilitate the work of committees, until ^^ ''■ September 17th. Its sessions were secret, and it was not until its final adjournment that the people knew anything about the proposed change of government. For many years the perplexities which surrounded its deliberations were little understood. Indeed, it was not until 1840, when Madison's notes of the debates were published, that historical students could trace the various steps which resulted in the formation of the most successful written Constitution^ the world has yet seen. Few deliberative bodies have contained so many men of experience and knowledge. Among its members of the Constitu- wcrc Washington and Franklin. From Virginia tion and their bcsidcs Washington there also came Tames Madi- \work. ° •' son and George Mason. One misses the deft hand of Thomas Jefferson, who at the time was American Minister at Paris. Nor was John Adams, Massachusetts' constitutional lawyer, present, as he was Minister at London. But Massachusetts sent a delegation of able and experienced men, Gerry, King, Strong, and Gorham, who, acting under the stimulus of Shays's Rebellion, advocated the formation of a strong centralized government. Among the Pennsylvania 1 See Appendix III. IV.] The Federal Convention, 1787. 125 members were James Wilson and Robert Morris. Of the younger men siiould be mentioned Alexander Hamilton and Gouverneur Morris: — to the latter' s skill in phraseology the Constitution owes much of its success. The secret discus- sions were straightforward, earnest, and patriotic. The reader of Madison's Debates is impressed by the absence of a priori reasoning. Most of the arguments were drawn from ex- perience; and the Constitution, instead of having been " struck off at a given time from the brain and purpose of man," as Mr Gladstone once said, was evolved from the experience of the English race in the two worlds. The framers of the Constitution were content to lay down general rules confiding large discretion to the three branches of the new government. They recognized that they were legislating for generations to come; and that the Constitution should be elastic and sus- ceptible of many different interpretations or it would be con- stantly changed to suit the varying needs of succeeding generations. They tried, on the one hand, to make revolution unnecessary by providing for the amendment of the Consti- tution. On the other hand, the cumbersome machinery for securing amendments made amendments barely possible. Over seventeen hundred amendments to the Constitution have been proposed in an official manner. Of these fifteen have been adopted. The first ten of them, forming a Bill of Rights, were declared in force December 15 th, 1791. The Eleventh Amendment (1798) limited the power of the Supreme Court. The Twelfth Amendment (1804) provided a new method for the election of the President and Vice-President. The other three amendments (1865-70) were the outcome of the Civil War and made such changes as were necessary to make the Constitution the organic law of a non-slaveholding country. The fact that from 1804 to 1865 — a period of sixty years — there was no amendment made to the instrument shows at once its great stability and at the same time its elasticity. 126 The Constitution. [Chap. Both of these qualities are due to the institution known as the Supreme Court more largely than to anything else,. except the natural conservatism of the American people. The colonists were not familiar with unrestricted legisla- tures like the British Parliament: laws passed Court. ^^"^^""^ by any colonial assembly might be annulled by the Privy Council. Nor were they acquainted with unlimited and irresponsible executive power: every colonial governor was restricted in the exercise of his authority by his commission and instructions and by colonial acts. It was therefore natural for the Constitution makers, when they came to provide for the executive and legislative branches of a consolidated government, to provide also a tribunal or tribunals which could review the acts of the other two branches of the government. The Supreme Court consists of judges appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate — this being the usual manner of appointment to all the higher administrative offices. But at the moment of appointment, the comparison between the judges and the other officials ceases. The Judges of the Supreme Court hold their office during good behaviour and receive salaries "which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office." These conditions apply to other judges of the United States Courts as well. But the Supreme Court Judges have a further pro- tection in the fact that the Supreme Court exists by express grant contained in the Constitution. All other United States Courts and Judges exist by virtue of Acts of Congress which may be repealed; and Circuit Court Judges have been "legislated out of office " in this manner. The Supreme Court Judges can be ousted from office only by impeachment, requiring the consent of a majority of the House of Repre- sentatives, and of two-thirds of the Senate. The Judges of the Supreme Court of the United States enjoy, therefore, a more secure position than any other man or body of men in the IV.] TJie Supreme Court. 12/ United States. The jurisdiction of the Court is confined to cases "arising under this Constitution." It has no initiative; nor is it consulted before the passage of a law or the per- formance of an administrative act. Furthermore, it has no common-law criminal jurisdiction, but is limited to the subjects mentioned in the Constitution. The Court has always regarded the Constitution as a fundamental law and has interpreted it as such. The first question to be decided in most cases, there- fore, is whether the Act of Congress or of a State Legislature, under which a case has arisen, is constitutional or uncon- stitutional. If the Court decides that the law is unconsti- tutional and therefore of no force, that is an end of the matter. The attentive student of the history of the United States will become conscious, as he proceeds in his study, that the Supreme Court from time to time has changed its mind. Of course this change must be very gradual, as in the ordinary course of human life the majority of the Court would change very slowly. The number of the judges is not mentioned in the Constitution. The Court, therefore, might be " swamped " by the appointment of more judges, provided the legislative and executive branches were convinced of the expediency of the measure. But so much veneration and respect has gathered about the Supreme Court that such a proceeding would be regarded as little short of revolution. In other respects, also, governmental ideas change or may change very slowly. This is due mainly to the varying terms of office of the President, of the Senators, and of the Members ^, . .,., , ' ' stability of of the House of Representatives. The Repre- the Govem- sentatives are elected every alternate year and "'^^ ' serve for two years. The President is elected for four years. The Senators are elected by the State legislatures for the still longer term of six years. Moreover one-third of the Senate is renewed each second year. Thus it often happens that the President and one house of Congress will belong to one party, 128 The Co7tstitution. [Chap. while the other house will be in the hands of the opposition. It has frequently happened that the President has belonged to one party and the majority in both houses of Congress to the other. Up to the present time it may be said that these things have all acted to increase the stability of the govern- ment and to prevent inconsiderate legislation. For it is evident that the Senate stands between any sudden desire for legislation of a particular kind and the fulfilment of the desire. If, however, the people continue to desire certain measures passed, the Senate in time will surely come to the same way of thinking. The government established under this Constitution proved to be unusually strong from the very beginning, of the new Many things tended to produce this strength. Government. Amoug the rest, the wide scope of the grant of power to the national legislature. The best way to understand this grant of power is to turn to the Constitution, Article i, Section 8. The first clause of that section reads as follows: " Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States." Passing over the remainder of the section one comes to the last clause which authorizes Congress " to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." It must be plain, no matter what construction the Supreme Court placed on the words, that laws "necessary and proper " to provide for the levying of " taxes, ... to provide for the general welfare " cover an enormous field. The Supreme Court, moreover, has interpreted the phrase " necessary and proper " in a very broad manner, and thus Congress has exer- cised most important functions, many of which may never have occurred to the members of the Federal Convention. IV.] The President. 129 The United States government is often spoken of as if the executive, legislative, and judiciary were distinct branches. As a matter of fact this is not true powers!°" °^ of the first two of the three branches. The President is the chief executive officer of the nation. But he also enjoys great legislative power, as by his veto he can compel a reconsideration of any act of Congress; but an act which commands a two-thirds majority at this second consideration becomes law without the President's consent. Furthermore, the President shares a considerable portion of his executive powers with the Senate. Thus no treaty can be ratified with- out the consent of two-thirds of the Senators present, at the time the vote is taken. The consent of the Senate is also necessary to all appointments to the higher offices. The President in other respects possesses ample powers. He acts on his own responsibility. He may consult the heads of departments, but need not dent of the follow their advice. At his inauguration he takes United ° States." an oath prescribed in the Constitution to pre- serve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." The President is the "Commander-in-Chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States." He must take care that the laws be "faith- fully executed " and he has power to grant pardons for "offences against the United States, except in cases of im- peachment." In time of war, especially of civil war, the powers exercised by the President as Commander-in-Chief — for the defence of the Constitution — may be those of a dictator. For instance, it was by virtue of these "war powers" that Presi- dent Lincoln freed all the slaves in the portions of the United States then in insurrection. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of a limit to the power of a President in sudden emergencies, as when, for example, the "faithful execution" C. A. • 9 130 TJie Constitution. [Chap. of the laws is interrupted by a mob. Furthermore, in the exercise of these powers, the question of the jurisdiction of the United States and of the several States does not arise. Persons obstructing the execution of the laws of the United States are amenable to the United States — be they State governors or railroad employees — and the President, for the defence of the Constitution, concerns himself with the indi- vidual and not with the State. An attempt was made in the Constitution, however, to Feder 1 nd Separate the functions of the United States and State jurisdic- of the Several States. To this end the States were forbidden (Article i. Section lo) to have any negotiations with foreign States, coin money, make any- thing except gold and silver a "tender in payment of debts," pass any law "impairing the obligation of contracts," etc. Congress (Section 9) is also forbidden to perform many acts, one or two of which we shall notice hereafter. Like all great political settlements, the Constitution was largely the result of compromises. Three of The Com- thesc Compromises are of great importance and promises. ^ ° ^ require some detailed description. At first it was proposed that the representation in both houses of Con- gress should be apportioned according to wealth. This was to avoid one of the great faults of the existing system which gave to the small States, Delaware, for instance, an equal voice with the large States like Virginia or Pennsylvania. Naturally, the delegates from the small States disliked this radical departure. The matter was settled by giving each State equal representation in the Senate, and providing for an apportionment of represen- tation in the lower house according to population. But when it came to the question of apportioning taxation, the Southern members contended that as slave labour was less productive than free labour, taxes should not be apportioned according to population, but according to some other ratio. Finally, it was IV.] The Adoption of the Constitution. 131 agreed to count slaves at three-fifths only of their number in the apportionment both of representation and direct taxation. The other question also turned on slavery. The North was desirous that the new federal erovernment should ° The regula- have power to regulate commerce. The South tion of com- hesitated to give this power to Congress lest it ™^^'^^- should be used to prohibit the slave-trade. In the end it was arranged by giving Congress power over commerce, except that the slave-trade might not be prohibited before 1808. It remains only to note that one of the final clauses (Article vi) declares that the Constitution and the laws and treaties made in pursuance thereof "shall be the supreme law of the land." When read in connection with the preamble : " We the people of the United States ... do ordain and establish this Constitu- tion," the supremacy of the United States over the States under the Constitution is apparent. The Federal Convention had been authorized by Congress to amend the Articles of Confederation. They had exceeded this commission, and the Consti- ^ ^°.'''" °^ '■^^'" ncation. tution, therefore, as it came from the Convention, was scarcely more than a plan for a new government proposed by a most respectable body of private gentlemen. It derived no binding force whatever from their action. They proposed that it should be submitted to the people of the several States by the legislatures thereof, and that, when nine States should have ratified it, it should be established between them. The constitutional position of the Constitution, if one may use the phrase, was so admirably described by Mr Madison that it will be well to read his words: "The Constitution as it came from the Convention," he said in 1796, "was nothing more than the draft of a plan; nothing but a dead letter, until life and validity were breathed into it by the voice of the people speaking through the several State conventions which accepted and ratified it." 9—2 132 The Constitution. [Chap. The action of the Federal Convention was no sooner known „ .J. . than two parties were formed, those favouring of the Consti- the new form of government calling them- *"*'°"' selves Federalists, their opponents being known as Anti-Federalists. This nomenclature was not always an accurate description of the contending parties. Patrick Henry, for example, opposed the adoption of the Constitution on the ground that the government to be organized under it would be a consolidated government and not a federal government at all. He was in favour of the establishment of a federal government. The issue, however, was really between the adoption of this constitution or anarchy, although to many persons at the time it seemed to be a contest between those favouring aristocracy and those favouring democracy. The Confederation could not last much longer. This being the case the people reluctantly assented to the Constitution, many of the State conventions proposing amendments. The papers teemed with articles for and against ratification. The ablest for the adoption of the plan were from the pens of Alexander Hamilton, James Madi- son, and John Jay. These were gathered into a more perma- nent form in a book entitled the Fcederalist which remains the best commentary on the Constitution. This is the more remarkable, as Hamilton, the principal writer of these essays, had little faith in the Constitution as it was adopted, but de- sired a much stronger form of government. On the other side the most instructive papers were Richard Henry Lee's Letters of the Federalist Farmer, and the speeches delivered by Patrick Henry in the Virginia Ratifying Convention — the latter may be found in Eliott's Debates or in Henry's Life of Patrick Henry. The ratification of the ninth State, New Hampshire, was made on June 21st, 1788. A few days later Virginia ratified, the messengers conveying the respective tidings The first ten passing cach Other on the banks of the Potomac. Amendments. ^ ° Preparations were immediately made for the IV.] The First Presidential Election. 133 organization of the new government. The first ten amend- ments, declared in force in 1791, made good most of the defects complained of by those opposed to ratification. It will be well, therefore, briefly to notice them here. The changes are all in the nature of limitations on the power of Congress. For example, Congress is now forbidden to make laws " respecting an establishment of religion," or abridging the freedom of the press. Another clause prohibits general war- rants. Other amendments secure jury trial, prohibit excessive bail and cruel or unusual punishments. The most important perhaps are the ninth and tenth amendments to the effect that the " enumeration ... of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people," and re- serving to the States or to the people "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States." There could be no question as to the first President, and Washington received the unanimous vote of all the electors. As to the Vice-Presidency, there anTAdImS°" was no such unanimity of opinion. John Adams of Massachusetts was the leading candidate. But he had lived long abroad and had given great offence by using the phrase "well-born " in a book written in defence of the State Consti- tutions. It was feared that he might have become enamoured of English institutions. The mode of election of President and Vice-President prescribed by the Constitution was found to be faulty. Electors were to be chosen in the several States who should, on a given day, vote by ballot for two persons, one of whom should not be an inhabitant of the same State as the elector. The person receiving the largest number of votes (provided it was a majority) should be President, the second on the list should be Vice-President. Hamilton, fearing lest Adams should receive more votes than Washington, intrigued with some of the electors to induce them to cast one of their 134 -^-^^^ Constitution. [Chap. iv. votes for some person other than Adams. Probably Hamilton had no sinister intentions in taking this action. But it came to the ears of Adams and gave him a distrust of Hamilton, which bore bitter fruit some ten years later. Notwithstanding its defects, this continued to be the method of choosing President and Vice-President until 1804 (see below, p. 157). Scale of Eug'lish Miles so lOO 200 ^ 300 MAI* 11. T<) IM.IJSTUATE CHAPTERS V IX NOTES TO MAP II. pgbedhxzh'r. Original boundary of the United States according to the Treaty of 1783 (p. 102 and Map I). p g b e. This boundary was determined in 1842 as marked g e. The hne contended for by the British crossed Maine a little to the north of the 46th parallel. The American claim is shown by line g b e. (See p. 224 and Map I.) d h. The line according to the treaty was to run due west from the Lake of the Woods to the Mississippi. XZh'l. Spain claimed as far north as 3^° 30', between the Mississippi and Chattahoochee rivers, but abandoned her claim by treaty in 1795. S V a' b' c d' d h X z h' p'. For the limits of Louisiana, see p. 166 and foil. O X Z 0. Seized by the United States in 1810 (p. 183). Z b' p'. Seized by the United States in 1812 (p. 183). By the treaty of 1819 with Spain, the United States acquired a clear title to the peninsula of Florida and to all land east of the Mississippi and south of X z b' r. The United States abandoned all claim to lands south of the line n a' m b' 1 and Spain ceded whatever rights it possessed to land north of this line to the United States (p. 198). Texas. The southern boundaiy of the State of Texas as one of the Mexican States was ai little to the south of the Nueces River. The portions of the territories, of New Mexico and Kansas to the south and east of lines V a' n were ceded to the United States by Texas in 1850 (p. 228). t u a" V B. Boundary between the United States and Mexico by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 1848. a"" u a" V a'". The "Gadsden Purchase " 1853. d d' c. Northern limit of the United States by Treaty of 1818 (p. igS). C b a. Northern limit of United States west of the crest of the Rocky Mountains, according to the Oregon Treaty, 1846, as interpreted by the German Emperor, 1871 (p. 236). NOTES TO MAP II. Pffbcdhxzh'r. Original boundary of the United States according to the Treaty of 1783 (p. 102 and Map I), p g b e. This boundary was determined in 1842 as marked g e. The line contended for by the British crossed Maine a little to the north of the 46th parallel. The American claim is shown by line g b e. (See p. 224 and Map I.) d h. The line according to the treaty was to run due west from the Lake of the Woods to the Mississippi. X Z h' r. Spain claimed as far north as 32° 30', between the Mississippi and Chattahoochee rivers, but abandoned her claim by treaty in 1795. S V a' b' c d' d li X z b.' p'. For the limits of Louisiana, see p. 166 and foil. X Z 0. Seized by the United States in 1810 (p, 183). OZh' p'. Seized by the United States in 181 2 (p. 183). By the treaty of 1819 with Spain, the United States acquired a clear title to the peninsula of Florida and to all land east of the Mississippi and south of X z b' r. The United States abandoned all claim to lands south of the line n a' m b' 1 and Spain ceded whatever rights it possessed to land north of this line to the United States (p. 198). Texas. The southern boundary of the State of Texas as one of the Mexican States was ailittk to the south of the Nueces River. The portions of the territories of New Mexico and Kansas to the south and east of lines V a' n were ceded to the United States by Texas in 1850 (p. 228). t u a" V 3. Boundary between the United States and Mexico by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 1848. a"" u a" V a'". The " Gadsden Purchase " 1853. d d' c. Northern limit of the United States by Treaty of 1818 (p. 196). c b a. Northern limit of United States west of the crest of the Rocky Mountains, according to the Oregon Ti-eaty, 1846, as interpreted by the German Emperor, 1871 (p. 236). CHAPTER V. THE NEW NATION. Slowly, as befitted the successor of the Confederation, the new governmental organization came into exist- Washinsf" ence — the moribund Congress of the Conf edera- ton's first in- tion prolonging its existence, that there might be auguration, no break in the continuity of the lives of the two federal organizations. Finally, however, the two Houses of Congress met, the electoral vote was counted, and Washington was inaugurated as the first President of the United States (April 30th, 1789). This first inauguration was a simple and impres- sive ceremony. English customs and traditions were the rule for ceremonial and social intercourse in those early days. Wash- ington had been accustomed to the glitter and pomp of the little court of the Governor of Virginia; and he seems to have believed that a limited appeal to men's senses in matters of dress and ceremonial was good in itself. At all events, the new government began its career with a solemn stateliness, well suited perhaps to the grandeur of the enterprise and to the character of its first chief; but which, before many years, proved to be distasteful to many voters. As an example of this adherence to custom, may be mentioned the speeches with which the first two Presidents were accustomed to open the sessions of Congress — after the manner of opening Parliament. The custom was also followed of the two Houses presenting 135 136 The New Nation. [Chap. addresses in answer to the speech, to which the President replied in a few words of thanks. As has been the case in England, it not infrequently happened that two, perhaps even all, of these documents were the work of the same ready penman. Then, again, Washington, unlike later Presidents, refused to be shaken by the hand, but holding his right hand behind him, he bowed stiffly to those who paid their respects to him. These, and other things which savoured somewhat of royalty, were unfortunate, in that they gave colour to the charge — entirely without foundation so far as Washington and Adams were concerned — of a design to introduce a monarchical form of government. Washington might well have been pardoned if his head had been turned. His birthday was celebrated as a holiday. As he travelled through the country in the recesses of Congress, he was greeted at one place as "Columbia's Saviour," and sped on his way at another with cries of "God bless your reign." Washington, in 1789, was in no sense a party man. He had been chosen to his high office by the unanimous suffrage of the whole nation. He desired to heal the wounds which the sharp contest over the ratification of the Constitution had made, and to interest the best men of all shades of opinion in the success of the new government. Franklinwas now an old man. John Adams was Vice-President, John Jay became the first Chief-Justice of the United States, and James Madison at this time was most usefully employed as administration leader in the House of Representatives. The most prominent man not in political life was Thomas Jefferson, Minister to France, but now at home on a leave of absence. To him, Washington offered the foremost place in the administra- tion, the Secretaryship of State, which Jefferson accepted. Born in 1743, Jefferson was now in the prime of life. His political theories, formed in the heat of the con- Thomas ^gg^. ^^-^^ ^^ mother-laud, were the same in 1 790, Jefferson. -^ 1798, and 1S25 that they were in 1774 and 1776. v.] Jefferson and Hamilton. 137 A sublime faith in humanity and a firm reliance on the ultimate judgment of the people made him the expounder of the princi- ples of democracy in the crises of 1776 and 1798. The means adopted by Jefferson to secure his ends were often repellent in the extreme; but this should never blind one to the ends for which he was working. Jefferson had been in France during the recent years (1781-87) of weakness and disaster which had converted so many men, Gerry and Madison, for instance, to the cause of strong government. On the contrary, an intimate contact with the French Revolution in its earlier and better period had served to confirm him in the opinion that "govern- ment derives its just powers from the consent of the governed." Opposed to Jefferson in every way was Alexander Hamilton, once Washington's aide-de-camp and now Secre- tary of the Treasury and the busiest man in the Hamm"^^' administration. Hamilton was younger than Jefferson, being at this time about thirty-three years of age. He was a native of the British West Indies, and found his way to New York in search of an education. The traditions of colonial institutions, so far as they departed from English pre- cedents, had had slight influence on him. Like Jefferson, he had made up his mind on political subjects at an early period, and the events of 1781-87 had only strengthened his a priori theories. While only twenty-two years of age, he had written to Robert Morris, then at the head of the financial administra- tion, proposing to enlist the influence and interest of men of position and means in the success of the Revolution. He proposed to accomplish this by means of a loan and a national bank. This was Hamilton's position ever afterwards. The following sentences, culled from speeches he made in 1787, will further elucidate his political opinions. Among "the essential principles necessary for the support of government," he numerated (i) "the love of power"; (2) "force, by which may be understood a coercion of laws or a coercion of arms"; 138 The New Nation. [Chap. (3) " influence," — by which he did not mean corruption, but a dispensation of those regular honours and emoluments which produce an attachment to the government. Nevertheless he quoted, with apparent approval, a statement which he attrib- uted to Mr Hume, " that all that influence on the side of the Crown, which went under the name of corruption, was an essential part of the weight which maintained the equilibrium of the [British] Constitution." To Hamilton, a government by classes was the best possible form, and the British government, as it existed in 1787 before the days of the Reform Acts, "was the best in the world ; and he doubted much whether anything short of it would do in America." To him "the people," to use his own phrase, was "a great beast." In 1802, not long before his unhappy death, he wrote to Gouverneur Morris, " Every day proves to me more and more, that this American world is not meant for me." The opportunity was now given him to enlist the influence and interest of the moneyed classes in the success of the new government. As the ablest man among the advo- cates of a strong government, Hamilton became the leader of the Federalists, as the party favouring centralization was still called. Jefferson, in a short time, began the formation of a party devoted to the spread of democracy. He was forced to rely on the advocates of particularism and thus became the champion of the State-rights doctrine. Some writers think that even then there was nothing incompatible between nationality and demo- cracy ; but it was not until the formation of the present Republican party that the two formed the basis of a political organization. Even before the inauguration. Congress began the arduous _ . ^. task of establishing the public credit. The treas- Organization ° ^ of the Govern- ury was empty and it was important to begin the '"^^ ■ collection of taxes with the least possible delay. On April 8th, 1789, two days after the appearance of a quorum of both Houses made Congress a legal body, Madison intro- duced a resolve which gave rise to the first tariff debate, and v.] Organization of the Government. 139 to the first enunciation bythenational legislature of a protective policy. The rates provided in this first tariff act were very low. This was due partly to the inexperience of the legislators, but more especially to a feeling, bred by the history of the Confederation, that it would be impossible to collect more. Subsequent acts increased the rates to a more remunerative figure. Ill-designed as the first tariff act undoubtedly was, the intention of the framers was to establish a protective system, as may be seen from the preamble, which reads as follows : "Whereas it is necessary for . . . the encouragement and pro- tection of manufactures. " This Act and a Tonnage Act, which was passed soon after, provided for a discrimination in favour of goods imported in vessels owned and manned by citizens of the United States, and levied duties which practically excluded foreign vessels from the coasting trade. It was also proposed to discriminate between vessels flying the flag of countries having commercial treaties with the United States, and those of countries which had no such treaty relations, but this scheme was not carried out. Congress then provided the machinery for carrying on the great departments of the government, con- tinuing in most cases the existing system, but substituting single departmental heads for the bureaus then in existence. The Federal judiciary was also organized. The Supreme Court consisted of the Chief Justice and five Associate Justices. Thirteen District Courts, each presided over by a District Judge, were established. The country was furthermore divided into three circuits, with courts to be held by a justice of the Supreme Court and the judges of the district courts within the limits of the circuit. The jurisdiction of these courts was defined and all necessary arrangements were made for the effective working of the system. Congress also determined what the salaries of the officers of the new government should be. The President's salary was fixed at twenty-five thousand dollars a year, at which sum it remained until 1873, when it 140 The New Nation. [Chap. was doubled. The President, in addition, has always had a furnished house provided at the national expense, and from time to time household officers, with salaries paid out of the treasury, have been provided. The salaries of the other high officers were arranged on a very moderate basis. The Vice-President was given five thousand dollars (^1,000), the Chief Justice four thousand, the Associate Justices and the Secretaries of State and of the Treasury thirty-five hundred each. The members of the two Houses were paid six dollars a day for each day's service, with mileage allowance to and from the seat of govern- ment. The Senators had very high ideas of the dignity of their positions, and endeavoured to secure a higher rate of pay than that given to the Representatives. The matter was com- promised by a provision that after March 4th, 1791, they should receive seven dollars instead of six. But when that time came, the popular branch of Congress had acquired so much strength that the discrimination was repealed. The Senators were also anxious to provide high sounding titles for the chief officers. It was proposed, at one time, that the President should be addressed as "His Highness, the President of the United States of America, and Protector of their Liberties." Eventually, the constitutional style of " President of the United States " was adopted. The Senators, however, for a while addressed one another as "Most Honourable," but that, too, was soon dropped. Curiously enough, some State governors, lieutenant- governors, mayors of cities, and other lesser functionaries have retained the old colonial titles of "His Excellency," "His Honour," and the like. It was during the second session of the first Congress that .,^ , the elements of discord and party division began Hamilton's f j o financial to show thcmselves. Hamilton presented an ^°'"^^" elaborate report on the public debt, and made certain recommendations as to the best method of funding it. It appeared from this report that the United States owed over v.] The State Debts. 14 1 fifty-four millio-n dollars. Of this, eleven millions were owed abroad, a«d these obligations were usually spoken of as the " foreign debt. " It was agreed that this must be paid according to the terms of the original contracts. As to the "domestic debt, " as that owed to citizens of the United States was called, there was much division of opinion. This debt included the original principal of over twenty million dollars and overdue interest of more than thirteen millions. Hamilton proposed to fund this portion of the debt at par in obligations of the new government. This was strongly opposed by many members of Congress. The debt had depreciated to about one-fifth of its original value, and it was argued that to pay the present holders of the debt a dollar for what had cost them twenty cents was not only an uncalled for act of generosity, but would wOrk great injustice to many original holders of the certificates. Madison proposed an equitable but probably impracticable scheme. It was, in brief, that the present holders should receive the highest market price, and the balance, amounting to more than one half of the whole, should be paid to the original creditors. This scheme, however, would have required as much money as Hamilton's, and would not have established the public credit on such a good foundation, and the Secretary's plan was adopted. Hamilton had further proposed that the debts incurred by the States in the prosecution of the war should . ^ Assumption be assumed and funded by the general govern- of the state ment. This part of the plan aroused fierce ^^*^" opposition. It happened that there were great inequalities in the proportional amounts of the State debts. On the one hand, some States had made greater sacrifices than others; and, on the other hand, some States had enjoyed exceptional advantages inpayingoff their debts. These two causes combined, in many different ways, to produce the result that the Northern States had larger debts to be assumed than the Southern States. The 142 The New Nation. [Chap. interests of the two sections were therefore different. The leading motives in Hamilton's mind in proposing his plan were the desirability of interesting as many persons as possible in the stability of the government, and of concentrating the sources of revenue in the hands of the central authority. But these reasons, which served to commend the measure to Hamilton, only made it more distasteful to the Southerners, who generally wished for as weak a national government as was compatible with safety. So many interests combined against the plan of assuming the State debts that it was defeated for a time. While the contest over this measure was in progress, Contest as to ^^lother Struggle, also arousing bitter sectional thenationai feeling, was going on. This was the deter- capi a . mination of the permanent seat of the national government. The Constitution provided that the federal government should have complete control over a district of not more than ten miles square, within which a national capitol and other government buildings should be built. The question as to the precise location of this little district, and of the temporary seat of government while the necessary buildings were being erected, seems now-a-days to be a matter of small moment; but at the time it aroused great interest. Congress was then sitting at New York, which was undoubtedly very inconvenient for the Southerners. They wished the permanent capital to be placed on the Potomac, and the Pennsylvanians desired that Philadelphia should be the temporary capital. Sectional pride and convenience influenced the Southern men, but the Pennsylvanians seem to have been actuated by pecuniary reasons alone. The Northerners, who cared little for this matter and a great deal about assumption, believed that the Pennsylvanians, whose votes had defeated that measure, had made a bargain of some kind with the South. They, therefore, secured the substitution of Baltimore for Philadelphia as the v.] The First Slavery Debates. ■ 143 temporary capital, and this measure came to a sudden stop also. At this juncture, Hamilton approached Jefferson, who had not then made up his mind as to his future course, and suggested that they should bring about a compromise. In the end, Jefferson secured the change of enough Southern votes to carry assumption, and Hamilton provided votes to carry the Potomac-Philadelphia scheme, and both plans passed into law. Meantime, another debate had initiated the discussion of the most burning question of all, slavery. The th fi t matter had been brought up first in Congress by slavery de- a Virginia member, who proposed that Congress should exercise its constitutional right and levy a tax on all slaves imported into the country. The political leaders of Virginia at that time were in favour of the abolition of slavery, but did not know how to bring it about. The representatives from the States south of Virginia felt no scruples as to the rightfulness of slavery. On the contrary, they justified it out of the Bible. They also considered that Virginia was not alto- gether disinterested in making this proposal, as in all likelihood she would be called upon to produce slaves for sale in the southernmost States after the abolition of the slave-trade should have closed the existing source of supply; and this was precisely what happened. The matter was then dropped in consideration of Southern votes in favour of the protective tariff] and, as a matter of fact, no tax was ever imposed on imported slaves. The next time the subject of slavery came before Congress, it appeared in a form much more offensive to the slave-owners. In 1790 petitions were pre- sented from the Quakers and from the Abolition Society of Pennsylvania, whose president was Benjamin Franklin. These two very respectable bodies prayed Congress to exercise what- ever power the Constitution gave it "to promote mercy and justice " toward the negro. The violence of the language used by the slave-owners' representatives was extraordinary, 144 "^^^^ New Nation. [Chap. and was scarcely exceeded in the whole course of the slavery struggle. But the Southerners scented danger, and the debate occurred when they were already exasperated by the discussions of the assumption and national capital schemes. Ultimately, after careful consideration by a large committee, a few very mild statements were entered on the Journal of the House and the matter dropped. In some measure as an outcome of this discussion. North Carolina stipulated, in her cession of claims to western lands, that no regulations looking towards the abolition of slavery in that district should at any time be made by Congress. In 1792, Kentucky was admitted to the Union as a slave State; in this way the Ohio River, forming the boundary between that State and the territory north-west of the River Ohio, separated the slave and free territories between the Alleghanies and the Mississippi — with the trifling exception of a small triangular district known as the "Virginia Pan- handle." The third session of the First Congress was held at Phila- delphia (Dec. 1 790-Mar. 1 79 1) . Two measures, The Excise, passcd at this time, aroused much opposition and brought about the permanent separation into the two great political parties which may be considered to have been in existence at the time of its final adjournment (1791). These two measures were the Act levying an excise tax and the Act incorporating the first Bank of the United States. Assump- tion had commended itself to Hamilton because it would necessitate the levying of an excise tax, and, in this manner, transfer a great part of the taxing power and machinery from the States to the federal government. The tax as proposed would be as inoffensive as such a tax could well be, but its enforcement would require inquisitorial methods and the net proceeds would be small in comparison with the amount laid out in salaries and other government expenses. As a matter of fact, it caused a small insurrection in western Pennsylvania, v.] The Excise and the Bank. 145 which cost the government more than the net proceeds of the tax for several years. It was finally voted, in spite of the protests of the legislatures of several of the Southern States. The issue here was mainly one of expediency. The questions involved in the Bank Charter were questions of interpretation of the Constitution, and went to the very bottom of the whole form of the new government. Hamilton desired the formation of a national bank, re- sembling in many ways the Bank of England, which had been in successful operation for nearlv ^J^^ Umted ^ ■' states Bank. a century. Such an institution would be a con- venient resource for temporary loans and, through the branches which could be established in different parts of the country, would be of great assistance in collecting the taxes and in making the necessary disbursements. Furthermore, as a large proportion of the stock could be paid for in United States bonds, the market price of those bonds would probably reach par. Hamilton also thought, in all probability, that the bank would aid in the policy of attaching the moneyed interests of the country to the national government. He believed the measure to be a con- stitutional one because a national bank was "necessary and proper " to the successful administration of the finances of the country. Jefferson, on the other hand, protested against the whole scheme. He felt that its adoption would increase the power and prestige of the national government. He disliked it also because he thought the Constitution should be strictly construed, and that nothing should be done by the national gov- ernment which was not directly authorized by that instrument, since all powers not delegated were reserved to the States or to the people. Thus the question of a strict or a liberal construction of the Constitution arose. Jefferson and Randolph of Virginia, the Attorney-General, took one side, Hamilton and Knox, Secretary of War, the other. Washington, after some hesitation, signed the bill, and some twenty-five years C. A. 10 146 The New Nation. [Chap. later James Madison approved a similar bill incorporating the second United States Bank. Two parties, however, had been formed in the cabinet. From that time on, Jefferson and Hamilton, to use the former's words, were "pitted against each other every day in the cabinet, like two fighting cocks." How far this lack of harmony in the cabinet was known to the people at the moment cannot be ascertained. It soon became evident enough that Jefferson was out of his place in a cabinet of which Hamilton was the most trusted member. Alarmed anddisgusted at the manner in which the Federal- ists were setting at naught what he regarded as a party'leader. ^^ expressed will of the people, Jefferson began to organize the various sections of the opposi- tion into a party. His career shows him to have possessed many diverse qualities. He was a philosopher, and sometimes a visionary. He was also a politician and a political inventor of the most practical kind. Working in the dark, his hand was felt rather than seen. His lieutenants and agents bore the brunt of the contest, the chief, like a great commander, remaining in the rear — though not always out of the reach of a chance shot. He believed, or, at all events, he convinced others, that Hamil- ton and the Federalists were aiming at the establishment of a monarchy. He thought that Hamilton possessed at his beck and call "a corrupt squadron " in Congress, and that corruption had been used in many ways to secure the ends of the " mon- archists." It happened, however, that Jefferson's first blow fell not on Hamilton, whom he feared and disliked, but on John Adams, whom he liked and did not fear, regarding him, on the contrary, as one of the most honest and disinterested men alive. The Vice-President had lately published a book entitled Discourses on Davila — "a dull heavy work" as he himself afterwards called it. Jefferson, in forwarding to a printer for re-publication a copy of Paine 's Rights of Man, stated, by way of saying something pleasant, that he was glad to find that v.] Foreign Relations, 1793-94. 147 something would be printed "against the political heresies which have recently sprung up among us." This letter was printed by the publisher apparently without Jefferson's consent. The phrase "political heresies " did much to destroy Adams's popularity, but after a short time the matter was settled as between Adams and Jefferson. The dissension in the cabinet now became very bitter, but Hamilton and Jefferson were not yet prepared for a trial of strength before the people. They implored Washington to be a candidate for re-election and he was unanimously chosen President for the second time, and John Adams was again elected Vice-President. On February ist, 1793, the French Republic declared war against Great Britain, and began a conflict which ^^^ Neutral- produced momentous consequences to theUnited ity Proclama- States as well as to the nations of Europe. In '°"' ^'^^''' America the tendencies of the time were distinctly in the direc- tion of democracy. The success of the new government seemed to justify those who had upheld extreme democratic doctrines. A large portion of the American people, knowing scarcely any- thing of the circumstances of the French Revolution, saw only a people striving to escape from the monarchical yoke as they themselves had done in the recent war, and they desired to give what aid they safely could to further this good work. Jefferson, the Secretary of State, was an ardent admirer of the French nation. He had left Paris in the early days of the Revolution. Overlooking or not comprehending the faults of the French, he remembered only their virtues, and sympathized with them. With Hamilton the case was entirely different. He had no sympathy at all for France, and he disliked democracy. The United States government was in a very difficult position. The Treaty of Alliance of 1778 might under some circumstances have given rise to much embarrassment. As it was, however, the indiscretions of Citizen Genet, the new Minister of the French Republic to the United States, strengthened fhe nands 10 — 2 148 The New Nation. [Chap. of those who advocated a policy of strict neutrality. Landing at Charleston, Genet at once began the fitting out of privateers, and seemed disposed to use the soil of the United States as if it were French territory. Jefferson advised him to be moderate in his actions; but Genet not only broke promises which he had made to the Secretary of State, but he defied the govern- ment. Washington, after mature deliberation, decided to regard the treaty of 1778 as not binding in this case. He, therefore, issued (1794) a proclamation enjoining the strictest neutrality as between the belligerents. This proclamation is also note- worthy as containing the first enunciation of what was afterwards known as the "Monroe doctrine," separating the affairs of the New World from those of Europe. Genet then appealed to the people against Washington. To such an issue there could be only one answer, and, at the request of the government, Genet was recalled. The passions aroused by this affair had scarcely begun to subside when they were excited again by the question of the ratification of a treaty with Great Britain which had been negotiated by Chief Justice John Jay. The Treaty of 1783 had been faithfully observed neither by Great Britain nor by the United States. There Jay's Treaty, secms to be little use at the present time in trying to apportion the blame. The matter had reached in 1793 the dangerous tu qitogu stage in which it seemed as if war could not be long postponed. The federal government was now able to compel obedience to its treaty obligations through the federal courts; and this being the case, Washing- ton sought to avoid war by sending John Jay to England. Jay negotiated a treaty whose sole claim to recognition is the fact that it deferred war between the two countries for nearly two decades. The treaty was regarded by a very large portion of the American people as most objectionable ; and it was thought by many that Jay had acted in the interest of a party devoted to England. There may have been a slight basis for this v.] Jay's Treaty, 1794. 149 opinion. Undoubtedly the mercantile classes in the North and East were much more friendly to England than were the people of the South. The Federalist party was controlled by the Northern mercantile class. In that sense, therefore, it was a British party. Of Jay's personal honesty there cannot be an atom of doubt. His refusal to lend himself to one of Hamil- ton's disreputable schemes at a later day shows him to have been thoroughly conscientious and incorruptible. Washington, in conformity with the advice of two-thirds of the Senate, ratified the treaty, with the exception of the most offensive clause. But the matter did not end there. An appropriation of money was required to carry the treaty into effect, and the opposition, or Republican party, as Jefferson called it, was in control in the House of Representatives. The constitutional position of the Lower House, which alone can originate money bills, compl"- cated the main issue. After a brilliant debate, the House yielded to the outside clamour in the commercial centres of the North, and voted the appropriation by the small majority of forty-eight to forty-one. Jay's treaty, besides postponing the second war with Great Britain for many years, also did much to bring about the downfall of the Federalists. The immediate result was a very great diminution in Washington's popularity es- pecially in his own State, Virginia. It was at this time (1794-96) that Washington was re- proached in language which scarcely ever has ^^ Adam been exceeded. As he himself said, he was elected Presi- spoken of '' in such exaggerated and indecent ^"*' '''^ ' terms as could scarcely be applied to a Nero, to a notorious defaulter, or even a common pickpocket." He was now very sensitive to praise or to blame, and perhaps this storm of opprobrium may have had something to do with his determina- tion to retire. Jefferson ultimately seems to have used his influence to stop the torrent of abuse, which he easily accom- plished as he controlled the Republican press; and the re- 150 The New Nation. [Chap. mainder of Washington's term of ofifice was passed without a contest of any kind. The choice of a new candidate for the Federalists seemed to be a difficult matter. Hamilton was the real leader of the party. But he was unpopular and was suffering from a confession of immoral conduct which had been forced from him to clear himself from a charge of official corruption. Jay would have been Hamilton's choice, but the great unpopularity which had gathered round Jay's treaty made his candidature impossible. Under these circumstances, John Adams was almost the only possible Federalist candidate for the Presidency. Instead of accepting him in good faith, Hamilton tried to contrive some scheme by which Pinckney, the Federalist candidate for second place, might be brought in first. Adams was popular with the rank and file of the Federalist party, and some of the Federalist electors, therefore, threw away their second votes, thereby ensuring the defeat of Pinckney. The Republicans showed a most unexpected strength. Adams was elected President by only three electoral votes over Jefferson who thus became Vice- President. In announcing his determination not to be again a candi- Washin ^^^^ ^'-'^ officc, Washington issued a Farewell ton's FareweU Address which had been long in preparation. Madison had had a share in it at the beginning, but more recently Hamilton had been Washington's principal adviser. The document was in every respect a masterly pro- duction, and formed a fitting close to Washington's official career. He advised his countrymen to foster the government recently established, and to preserve the public credit. With regard to the outside world, he wished his fellow-citizens first of all to be Americans, and to act with honesty toward all foreign countries, forming no alliances and keeping aloof from all dis- putes in which European countries, by their situation, were necessarily involved. v.] Relations zvitJi France, 1794-99. 151 John Adams began his presidential career (i 797-1 801) by re- taining in ofifice his predecessor's chief advisers. Jefferson and Hamilton had long since resigned, Adams's Ad- and the heads of departments were men of fair "^'"istration. abilities only, who might easily have been replaced. This was a grave error as they looked to Hamilton and not to Adams as the leader of the Federalist party. Adams was thus compelled in 1798 to take most important action without consulting his official advisers. This he had a perfect right to do, as the Constitution makes the President personally responsible for his acts; but it precipitated a crisis fatal to his party. The main interest of Adams's administration turns on the relations with France, which was now under the „ , . Relations domination of the Directory. At the moment of with France, Adams's accession, there was a complete cessa- '^^'^'S^- tion of diplomatic relations between the two countries. This was due to the shock which the negotiation of Jay's treaty had given to French susceptibilities. Monroe of Virginia, a man of the Jeffersonian school, was then American Minister at Paris. Instead of trying to reconcile the French government to Jay's treaty, he increased the irritation which was felt in France by his petulant and undignified conduct, and returned to the United States in disgrace. Another American envoy had been sent away from Paris and the French Minister in the United States had been recalled. Adams determined to renew friendly relations with a power whose armies, led by Napoleon, were at the moment in the midst of a most brilliant campaign in Italy. To produce a great effect he appointed three commissioners, Pinckney, John Marshall, and Elbridge Gerry — the last a Massachusetts Republican. On their arrival at Paris, a most extraordinary endeavour to extort money from them was made. Talleyrand seems to have been at the bottom of this discredit- able business, but in the published despatches the letters X, Y, 152 The New Nation. [Chap. and Z were used to denote the instruments of the intrigue and it is hence known as the "XYZ Affair." The American Commissioners resisted in a most dignified way, and the outspoken reply of Pinckney to one of the French agents: "Millions for defence; not one cent for tribute" became a rallying cry for the Federalists. The Republicans saw with dismay the ground cut from beneath their feet by the action of their French friends. Had the Federalists been united and well led, they might have grasped the great oppor- tunity presented by this crisis to win the goodwill and support of their countrymen. As it was, Washington used his influence to place Hamilton in a position of practical superiority in military matters as regarded Adams. Such a position was untenable, as the President under the Constitution was the head of the army. To free himself from this thraldom Adams seized the first opportunity to make peace with France and to rid himself of Hamilton and Hamilton's creatures. The measures adopted by Congress, practically at the dicta- tion of the Federalists, were admirable so far as f ofwar^*'""^ ^^ defence of the country was concerned. A new army organization was set on foot with Washing- ton in nominal command, but with Hamilton the real com- mander, at least until the campaign should actually begin. The navy, which already had been begun during some recent dis- putes with Algiers, was now organized, and rendered good ser- vice — one of the frigates, the Constellation, capturing the French frigate riiisurgente. The Federalists committed a fatal blunder, however, in the , .,. passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts. These The Alien ^ ° and Sedition laws Seem to have been modelled on similar laws ^"^'®' enacted by the British Parliament at about the same time. The Alien Acts authorized the President, at his discretion, to cause aliens to be removed from the country; or to permit them to reside at certain places specified by him, v.] The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. 153 on their giving bonds for good behaviour. The Sedition Act provided severe penalties for those who should resist the lawful acts of the federal officials, and for all who might be concerned in any publication bringing or tending to bring the United States government or any of its officers into disrepute. At nearly the same time, the period of residence required for naturalization was lengthened from five to fourteen years. Led by Albert Gallatin, a recent immigrant from Switzerland, the Republicans in Congress strenuously opposed these acts. But they were overborne, and the laws were passed. Defeated in Congress, the Republicans then had recourse to expedients familiar enough in pre-revolutionary days. The legislatures of Kentucky and Virginia passed Resolutions (1798-99) which were transmitted to the legislatures of the other States for their action thereon. The Kentucky Resolutions were introduced into the legislature of that State by Mr Breckenridge. The real author, however, was Jefferson, and it is he who must be held responsible for the constitutional theories propounded in these resolutions. These theories were briefly (i) that the Consti- tution was a compact between the States; (2) that the co-States were the judges of the validity of federal laws; and (3) not the federal government which was their agent. In the original draft, as written by Jefferson, the reasoning was carried to its logical conclusion, namely, that the States might "nullify " those acts of the Federal Congress which were outside the strict limits of the powers delegated to that body. This dogma of nullification was too bold for the Kentucky legislators in 1798; but in the resolutions passed the next year it was set forth at length. The Virginia Resolutions were drafted by Madison, who was now firmly attached to the Republican party. They were much milder in tone, as befitted the work of the more cautious Madison. Nothing came of either of these attempts to secure concerted action on the part of the States against the federal government. 154 T^^^^ New Nation. [Chap. A letter which Hamilton wrote to Mr Dayton, Speaker of the House of Representatives, contains the ex- Hamiiton's tremc Federalist view, and may be regarded in some measure as an answer to the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. In this letter, Hamilton advocated the cutting up of the States into small divisions for the purposes of increasing the number and power of the federal courts. He also thought that an amendment to the Constitution was desirable, authorizing Congress at its discretion to divide the larger States into two or more States. He advised the retention of the army on its present war footing, even if peace should be made with France. At this moment Adams, without any con- sultation with the members of his cabinet or with the party leaders, reopened negotiations with France, and thus put an abrupt ending to the dreams of Hamilton and his friends. It appears that the publication of the X Y Z correspondence caused great excitement among the governing with France circlcs in France. Talleyrand saw that he had renewe . gone too far and tried to draw back. An intima- tion was conveyed to Vans Murray, the American Minister at the Hague, that if the United States would send an envoy to Paris, he would be well received. Adams grasped at the chance offered him to bring peace to his country. He nomi- nated Vans Murray as Minister to France. But the party leaders in the Senate, amazed and furious at this sudden change of front, seemed determined to reject the nomination. The President then substituted a commission, consisting of Ellsworth, Jay's successor as Chief Justice, Patrick Henry, and Vans Murray, and these nominations were confirmed. Patrick Henry, now old and infirm, declined to go, and Davie, of North Carolina, another Southern Federalist, was appointed in his stead. Adams also seized the first opportunity to remove his most treacherous advisers, substituting John Marshall, of ■ Virginia, for Timothy Pickering as Secretary of State. v.] The Election of 1800. 155 The Commissioners were well treated in France. Napoleon was now First Consul, He appointed a com- mission, presided over by Joseph Bonaparte, to pranTefiS^o. negotiate with them, but he refused to pay for American property seized by the French government or by its agents during the recent troubles or to consent to the formal abandonment of the Treaty of Alliance of 1778. These subjects were to be reserved for future negotiations. The United States Senate refused to ratify the clause embodying this arrangement. In other respects the treaty was satisfactory to both parties, and it was ultimately agreed that the United States should give up its contention as to the payment of claims, and the French government consented to regard the Treaty of 1778 as no longer binding. Thus by the act of the Federalist Senate, the United States became liable to its own citizens for French spoliations committed before 1800. It is only within the last few years, when legal proof has become almost impos- sible, that the American government has consented to pay these "French spoliation claims." In 1800, for the first time, a presidential election was con- tested with great vigour and acrimony. The Federalist party laboured under many serious ^^ jg^^^ disadvantages. Adams's administration had been most fortunate for the country, and time has vindicated the purity of his motives and the wisdom of his actions. He was still popular with the mass of the party and he became the Federalist candidate. There was no one else to be nominated with any prospect of success. Hamilton would have been an impossible candidate; Jay refused to enter national politics again; and Washington and Henry were both dead. Accepting Adams as the inevitable leader, Hamilton embarked on a course of petty intrigue similar to those intrigues of 1788 and 1796 already described. The candidate for Vice-President was Charles C. Pinckney of South Carolina. It was now proposed 156 The New Nation. [Chap. that the South Carolina electors should vote for Jefferson and Pinckney, in the expectation that the additional votes thus given to Pinckney would elect him President, and return Adams to the Vice-Presidency. Pinckney honourably declined to be a party to the transaction. To discredit Adams with his own party, Hamilton wrote a long dissertation to prove Adams's unfitness for the highest office. It was intended that this document should be passed from hand to hand among the leaders of the party. But the Republicans secured a copy and published it far and wide. The Federalists would probably have been defeated in any event, as the Alien and Sedition Laws had aroused so much opposition that they dreaded to have their own instrument put into force. Every prosecution under these laws converted thousands of voters to the Republican party. Jefferson had now perfected the organization of that party, and while the Federalists were quarrelling among themselves, the Republicans were united and able to take advantage of every opportunity that presented itself. The Republican candidate forVice-Presidentwas Aaron Burr, a disreputable New York politician — one of the first and ablest of his kind. He had formed the New York Republicans into a compact well-drilled political organization, and had thus won his nomination. When the electoral votes were counted it was found that Jefferson and Burr had each received seventy- three votes, while Adams had sixty-five and Pinckney sixty-four votes. It was clear that Adams and Pinckney were defeated. But who was chosen President, Jefferson or Burr? The Constitution provided that in case of a tie of this description the House of Representatives, voting Amendment, by States, should elect as President one of the ^^°'*' two having the highest number. The Federalists were in a majority in the House both as ordinarily constituted and also when organized on the basis of each State having one vote. There was not the slightest doubt in anyone's mind as v.] The yudiciary Act, \Zo\. 157 to which candidate the people had intended to elect President. Jefferson was the foremost man in the country, the creator of the Republican party, and loved and respected by nine-tenths of the voters of that party. Burr, on the other hand, was a mere politician who had been placed on the ticket to secure the vote of New York. The Federalists, blinded by their hatred of Jefferson, determined to elect Burr President. This was against Hamilton's wish, who disliked Burr on his own account. Thirty-five ballots were cast before the Federalists could bring themselves to carry out the clearly-expressed will of the people. Ultimately Jefferson was declared elected President and Burr Vice-President. To avoid the many inconveniences which were inseparable from the existing mode of electing President and Vice-President, an amendment to the Constitu- tion (the Twelfth Amendment) was adopted in 1804. The old machinery of electors was preserved, but each elector in the future was to vote for President and for Vice-President on separate and distinct ballots. In case no candidate for Presi- dent should receive a majority of all the votes cast, it was provided that the House of Representatives, voting by States, should elect one of the three having the highest number of votes President. In a similar case as to the Vice-President the Senate should elect one of the two having the highest number Vice-President. The only valuable feature of the old system was that able men were nominated for both offices, as it was very uncertain how any election would turn out. Since 1804, however, second-rate and even third-rate men have been chosen to the second place. Defeated at the polls, the Federalists retreated " into the Judiciary as a stronghold." After the results of the elections were known they passed a law ^^''V"'^'"*'^^ largely increasing the national judicial estab- lishment, although the existing organization was more than sufficient to transact all the judicial business of the country. 158 The Nezu Nation. [Chap. In this way many new offices were created and more than twenty-three new appointments — presumably for life — placed in Adams's hands. He promoted many of the district judges to these new places, and was thereby enabled to appoint to the old places thus vacated many Federalist members of Congress who were constitutionally ineligible to the new offices — as a member of Congress cannot be appointed to any office created by an Act passed while he is in Congress. One of the last appointments of Adams deserves to be noted. Ellsworth resigned the Chief Justiceship on account of his advanced age; and Adams nominated to the vacant post John Marshall of Virginia, at the moment acting as Secretary of State. For thirty-five years he remained at the head of the Supreme Court, imposing his ideas on the new Associate Justices, as one after another they appeared. During these years John Marshall laid down the broad construction theory of the Con- stitution first propounded by Hamilton. In truth, however, Jefferson once in power forgot many of his former theories, and exercised whatever authority he wished, with slight regard to the Constitution, as for instance in the case of the Louisiana Purchase. Adams's departure from political life was a most unfitting „^ ,,„.j close to a great career. According to a tradi- The " Mid- ° ° night appoint- tion, preserved in Jefferson's family, at midnight '"^"*®' on March 3rd, 1801, Levi Lincoln, of Massa- chusetts, Jefferson's proposed Attorney-General, with the new President's watch in his hand, entered the office of the Secretary of State and ordered Marshall to stop countersigning commis- sions. At daybreak the next morning, Adams began his last journey from the seat of government to his home at Quincy, Massachusetts, without waiting to see his successful rival in- augurated into office. Looking backward, it seems clear that Adams's failure in his party was due to the fact that he was in the wrong party. He seems to have become conscious of this v.] TJie End of Adams s Career. 159 later on. During their last years Adams and Jefferson became friends once more. On July 4th, 1826, on the fiftieth anni- versary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, these two men, the one the author, the other the defender of that great declaration, died. The last words that fell from Adams's lips were "Thomas Jefferson still lives." CHAPTER VI. SUPREMACY OF THE JEFFERSONIAN REPUBLICANS. 180I-I809. The first administration of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1805) marked the close of a revolution as important ideaTs"i8oo. ^^^ ^^ far-reaching in its consequences to the American people as the movement of 1776-83, which one ordinarily associates with the phrase " the American Revolution." A better usage would include both movements in this term. In 1776, the colonists freed themselves from the bonds which had hitherto bound together the several groups that used the English tongue. In 1800, the American people broke away from its own past and entered upon the work of the Nineteenth Century with that spirit of modern liberalism which one might well call the Nineteenth Century spirit. In this, they stood almost alone. Nowhere else were the ideas which have made this century memorable in the history of the human race so well developed and so openly recognized. It is true that the French at one time had seemed about to take the lead in the march of progress. But France was now under the rule of a military despot. In America, on the other hand, the ardour of the earlier revolution, chastened and confined within more reasonable limits, again asserted itself. The Federalist party was conservative — ultra-conservative. It clung hopelessly and despondently to the eighteenth century 160 Chap, vi.] TJie American People in i8oo. l6l ideas of law and order in society and government. It was defeated in 1800, not because it was Federalist, but because it held to the ideals of a bygone age. The American voters, strong in their faith in humanity and in human progress, would no longer consent to place the government of a free people in the hands of those who believed in government by a minority. It will be well to stop a moment and observe the con- dition of the American people at the beginning of the century. The area of the United States was then about 849,145 square miles, the same as in 178^. The total ^ ■ ■ ^ . Statistics of population was given in the census of 1800 Population, at five million three hundred thousand. This ^^°°' may be compared with four millions in 1790 and one million six hundred thousand in 1760. The American people was still mainly engaged in agriculture. This can be easily understood from a slight analysis of the population. If we take the line of five thousand as determining whether the inhabitants of a town should be classed as a rural or urban population, we find that in 1800 there were only eleven towns containing five thousand inhabitants or over.^ Five of these towns, Philadelphia, New York, Baltimore, Boston, and Charleston, each contained over twenty thousand inhabitants. The total urban population was 1 The population of these eleven towns is thus recorded in the Second Census : Philadelphia, Pa 70,287 New York, N.Y 60,489 Baltimore, Md 26,614 Boston, Mass 24,027 Charleston, S.C 20,473 Providence, R.I 7,614 Savannah, Ga 7,523 Norfolk, Va 6,926 Richmond, Va 5,537 Albany, N.Y 5,349 Portsmouth, N.H 5i339 C. A. II 1 62 The yeffersonian RepiLblicans. [Chap. two hundred and forty thousand or about five per cent, of the whole. The population of the United States was distributed by sections somewhat as follows : New England the popuiaUon. Contained, in round numbers, one million two hundred thousand, the Middle States one million four hundred thousand, and the Southern States two million two hundred thousand. The population of the States north of Mason and Dixon's line was nearly two million seven hundred thousand, or, excluding slaves, one hundred thousand less. Subtracting the slave population from the total popula- tion of the Southern States, we find that the white population of that section was one million three hundred thousand, or only just half that of the North. A study of these figures in detail will show more clearly the great differences already existing between the two sections. The South, with a total popula- tion of over two millions, contained only two large towns, Baltimore and Charleston, and a total urban population of sixty-seven thousand. The North, with a total population of over two millions and a half, contained two cities of over sixty thousand inhabitants each, and a total urban population of over one hundred and seventy thousand. One or two comparisons will be of interest as showing the extent to which slavery was even then exercising its influence. Taking Pennsylvania and Virginia, we find that Pennsylvania with a population of about six hundred thousand possessed a city of seventy thousand inhabitants. On the other hand, Virginia, whose boundaries for a long distance marched with those of Pennsylvania, con- tained no town of over seven thousand, and had an urban population of only twelve thousand four hundred and three in a total population of nearly nine hundred thousand. In Pennsylvania there were no slaves, in Virginia there were three hundred and fifty thousand slaves. This contrast between two States lying almost side by side is most interesting and forms VI.] TJie American People in 1800. 163 one of the best examples of the play of State lines, as well as of the results which slavery had already produced in the social development of the South. Slavery was practically extinct in the North, every State, except New Jersey, having since 1780 abolished slavery or set on foot some scheme for gradual emancipation which, as a matter of fact, ended in abolition. In the South, many far-seeing men, like Washington and Jefferson, were anxious to have the slaves in that quarter emancipated. But this was impossible, as the slaves formed such a large portion of the invested capital of the country. It could have been brought about only through purchase, in one form or another, by the national government. The funds for this purpose must have been largely, if not entirely, drawn from the North, and the people of that section having freed their own slaves without assistance would probably have been very unwilling to contribute to the aid of the South. This seems to have been the only moment when the slave- owners might have been bought out on reasonable terms and without bloodshed, and no such plan was even mentioned. The recent invention of the cotton gin combined with important inventions in the machinery for cotton spinning and weaving gave a tremendous stimulus to the production of cotton. After the cultivation of that staple on a large scale had become common in the South, slavery could be abolished only by war. The American people still clung to the Atlantic seaboard, with the exception of two or three communities , . , , T . r .1 • Communica- which had sprung up west of the mountains, tion with the The conditions of transportation had made Mississippi scarcely any progress since 1760. Four roads or paths led from the seaboard over the mountains — two of them leading to the northern portion and two to the southern portion of the Ohio valley. About four hundred thousand settlers — including slaves — inhabited these vast solitudes be- tween the mountains and the Mississippi. Separated by a II — 2 164 TJie Jeffersonian Republicans. [Chap. wilderness from the older States, the new settlements were a constant menace to the Union. The isolation of these western hamlets is comparable only to that of the inhabitants of some of the remote river valleys of Europe in the mediaeval time. Jefferson regarded the rapid colonization of the western lands with alarm. No one could have foreseen at that time (1800) the changes which the introduction of the steam loco- motive and the steamboat would make in the political aspects of the new world. It is almost safe to say that the political results which have flowed from the introduction of steam have equalled in importance for America the economic results. Without easy communication of some kind in the years 1800- 1860 the area now occupied by the United States, if settled at all, must have been possessed by several different political organizations having varied and divergent interests. In the art of living, the people in 1800 were where their fathers had been forty years before. In letters tion"^i8oo°"'^'" ^^^ learning there had been a slight advance, and the beginnings of a new era might even then be discerned. The religious oligarchy still maintained its hold on the New England intellect, but its days were numbered. The colleges seemed to be at a standstill — there were fewer students at Harvard in 1800 than in 1700. Philadelphia was still the literary and intellectual centre of the country, but even there during these years there seems to have been retro- gression rather than advance. The American people was ab- sorbed in repairing the havoc and waste of years of war and anarchy. This attempt had been successful, as an examination of the census returns will show. The year 1792 is the first year for which we have trustworthy returns. Let us compare a few of the statistics growth, 1792- for that year with those of 1800. The total ex- ^ °°' ports were valued in 1792 at twenty millions of dollars, in 1800 at seventy millions. In 1792 the imports were valuedatthirty-onemillionsagainst ninety-one millions in 1800. VI.] yefferson s First Inangiiration, 1801. 165 The income of the government had risen in this time from three million six hmidred thousand dollars to ten million six hundred thousand. The federal expenditure, exclusive of interest on the national debt, had increased from one million eight hundred thousand to over seven millions. These figures show at once the increase in prosperity which followed the adoption of the Constitution, and also the success which had attended Hamil- ton's efforts to build up a large governmental establishment and to draw to it the revenues of the country. The very magnitude of the federal receipts and payments alarmed Jefferson. The country did not have long to wait before it became conscious that with Jefferson a new order was to , „ •' Jefferson s be introduced into the government. Instead of inaugural Ad- proceeding in coach and four to the inaugura- '^^^^' ^ °'' tion ceremonies, as had been customary, Jefferson walked to the capitol, read his inaugural address and took the oath of office. A few sentences from this address will serve to show that Jefferson, in becoming President, did not intend to abandon the theories of a lifetime. "The sum of good government," to his mind, was "a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labour the bread it has earned." As to his late opponents, he desired conciliation, saying, " We are all Republicans, Ave are all Federalists." By this he meant, no doubt, that the mass of the Federalist party was composed of honest men who would be Republicans if they were well informed. He then laid down the broad lines of his policy, as follows: "Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none; . . . economy in the public expenditure, that labour may be lightly burdened; the honest payment of our debts, and sacred preservation 1 66 The Jejfersonian Republicans. [Chap. of the public faith; encouragement of agriculture, and of commerce as its handmaid; the diffusion of information, and arraignment of all abuses at the bar of public reason; free- dom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom of the person. . . . Should we wander from them [the above principles] in moments of error or alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety." Anticipating our narrative, for a moment, it may be said that Jefferson so managed matters that in four years' time the Federalist electoral vote fell froni sixty- five to fourteen. The new President was very fortunate in the selection of his leading advisers. He placed Madison at the Changes in ° ^ the Civil Ser- head of the State department and Gallatin at the head of the Treasury. Two Massachusetts men, Dearborn and Lincoln, were Secretary of War and Attorney- General, respectively. The first three of these four men re- mained Jefferson's chief advisers during the eightyearsof his ad- ministration. The Republican President found the government offices occupied by Federalists. Among these office-holders were some of the most bitter opponents of the administration. One of these was Goodrich, formerly a Representative from Connecticut, who had resigned his seat to accept from President Adams the CoUectorship of Revenue at New Haven. Nowhere was Federalism more rampant than in Connecticut. President Dwight of Yale College, situated at New Haven, probably ex- pressed the opinions of many leading Federalists in the follow- ing remarkable sentences written soon after the inaugura- tion : " We have now reached the consummation of democratic blessedness. We have a country governed by blockheads and knaves; the ties of marriage with all its felicities are severed and destroyed. . . . Can the imagination paint anything more dreadful on this side hell ? " It chanced that a young man named Bishop, at about this time, delivered an address defending VI.] The Civil Service. 167 Republicanism before the literary societies of the college over which Mr. Dwight presided. Jefferson removed Goodrich from the collectorship and appointed the father of this young orator to the place. The matter attracted attention out of all comparison with its importance. It must be conceded that Jefferson believed that a party containing more than one-half of the voters of the country was entitled to a participation in the offices maintained by the nation. But in the first fourteen months of his administra- tion, he removed only sixteen office-holders without assigning adequate reasons. To one office-seeker, who asserted that the Republicans were entitled to the offices as saviours of the coun- try, he is said to have answered that " Rome was once saved by geese; but I have never heard these geese were made revenue officers." So far from using the government offices to reward his followers, Jefferson cut down the civil service, and thus to a considerable extent deprived himself of the means of so doing. As to Adams's "midnight appointments" he felt free to com- plete them or not as he chose, and he even refused to deliver commissions which Adams and Marshall had left properly signed at the moment of their hasty exit from office. The new federal courts were abolished by Act of Congress, and no one seriously questioned the constitutionality of the act. The judges of the Supreme and District courts of the United States held their offices for life. They were all Federalists, and so, too, were the minor officials of these courts. Jefferson felt that it was unwise to leave a great and important department wholly in the control of a party which the people had repudiated. He removed as many of the inferior officials as possible, substi- tuting Republicans in their places. An attempt was also made to secure a place on the bench of the Supreme Court through the impeachment of Samuel Chase, one of the Associate Jus- tices; but it failed owing, in some measure, to the mis- management of the impeachers. The cautious temperaments of Jefferson and Marshall prevented any further conflicts, and 1 68 The yeffersonian Republicans. [Chap. the Supreme Court remained in the control of the Federalists for many years. The necessity for the removals, above noted, is to be deplored, as they furnished a precedent for the whole- sale removals of Jackson's time. But, as some writers have pointed out, Jefferson's action was made necessary by the earlier proscription of the Republicans by the Federalists. The National Debt had increased in nine years (1792-1801) from seventy-seven to eighty-two million dollars, Gallatin's -' ° -' ,• i i i financial although this increase was not realized by the P"^**^^" people, owing to the operation of a sinking fund. Of the income of the government, some ten millions in all, only about one and one-half million was derived from the internal taxes, which were collected at great disproportionate expense, and were very irritating to large sections of the population. The total expenditure of the government was nearly seven and one- half millions. Of this sum almost three and one-half millions were devoted to the navy. Jefferson and Gallatin were anxious to reduce these charges and taxes in the interests of economy, and also to undo as much as possible of the centralization of the Federalist government. Itwas plain that the great increase of ex- penditure had been on the navy. Jefferson disliked a naval estab- lishment in itself. He believed that wars and disputes were of ten occasioned by the action of naval officers, or perhaps grew out of the presence of naval vessels in foreign ports. He also thought that the possession of naval renown made for war. If Jefferson had had his way he would have tied the war-ships to the most convenient wharves, employing a few watchmen to guard them. This would have freed at least three millions each year for the reduction of the debt, and the loss of the internal revenue taxes was to be made good by reduction in the diplomatic service and in the judiciary. It proved to be impossible to carry out this scheme in its entirety. The internal taxes were abolished and with them a large number of offices. But although the national debt was in part extinguished, the VI-] yefferson s First Administration, 1 80 1-5. 169 creation of a new debt to pay for the purchase of land in 1803 and for the War of 181 2 postponed the extinction of the debt for many years, although Gallatin reduced it from eighty-two million to about forty million dollars. As to the navy, its first renown was gained during Jefferson's administration. The Barbary Corsairs seem to have had little faith in theories as to the possibilities or virtues of ageneral peace. They had demanded and received money from ^^^ war"^° '' the United States, and at last in 1800, as a means of extracting a larger tribute, the Pacha of Tripoli declared war against the United States. Jefferson, instead of tying the vessels to a wharf, was obliged to send them to the Mediter- ranean. One expedition necessitated another, and in 1803 the Republican Administration began the construction of several sloops-of-war especially designed for service on the coasts of Northern Africa. In 1804, the matter was concluded to the satisfaction of the United States. It was during this war that the American naval officers gained the skill which stood them in good stead in the later contest with Great Britain. The people listened with avidity to the recitals of the deeds of daring associated with the names of Decatur, Preble, Bainbridge, and Barron, and acquired a taste for naval adventure, quite foreign to the desires of the President. The most important act of this administration was the purchase of that territory lying between the Mississippi, the Rocky Mountains, and the Rio gains Louisi- Grande, which then was known under the general ^"^' ' °°' name of Louisiana. The colony included under this designa- tion had been settled originally by the French at the end of the seventeenth and the beginning of the eighteenth century. It had led a struggling and feeble existence, and in 1763 it was ceded to Spain to recompense her for Florida, which that power had been obliged to give to Great Britain in exchange f or Havanna — captured by the British in 176 1. It is important 170 The yeffersonian Republicans. [Chap. to observe at the outset that this vast region had been valued in 1763 as the equivalent of the Spanish colony of Florida. The French King, at the time that he ceded Louisiana to Spain, had ceded his other territories on the continent of North America to Great Britain. In 1797, France had once more become the most powerful military state in Europe. Talleyrand, at that time foreign minister, conceived the scheme of rebuilding her former colonial empire, in the hope, per- haps, of forcing her people upon the sea, and in this way re- establishing her marine. He designed, as the iirst part of this plan, to regain Louisiana from Spain. Napoleon, when he became the first power in France, entered heartily into Talley- rand's plans, and forced Spain (1800) to retrocede Louisiana to France. The price paid for this cession was the dangerous goodwill of Napoleon and an elusive Italian throne for the Spanish king's son-in-law. The announcement of this change of ownership aroused a ^^ . , storm of indignation in the United States. The The Ad- ° ministration pacific Jeff crsou, forgetting the interests of peace, aroused. wrote a letter, the gist of which was to be com- municated to the French government. A few sentences from this letter will serve to show how serious the matter seemed to the President. Among other things, he said: "The day that France takes possession of New Orleans fixes the sentence which is to restrain her for ever within her low-water mark. It seals the union of two nations, who, in conjunction, can maintain exclusive possession of the ocean. From that moment we must marry the British fleet and nation." The matter was further complicated by the action of the ^^ , . . Spanish authorities at New Orleans. The Mis- The Louisi- ^ ana Purchase, sissippi formed the principal outlet for the people ' °^" of the western portions of the United States. The lumber, grain, and other produce of the Ohio basin was carried on flatboats or rafts to New Orleans and there placed on sea-going VI.] The Louisiana Purchase, 1803. 171 vessels. The United States had secured from Spain the right for her citizens to store their goods at New Orleans pending trans-shipment. There was no topic about which the people of Kentucky and Tennessee were so sensitive as the navigation of the Mississippi. Suddenly, the Spanish Intendant at New Orleans withdrew "the right of deposit" from the Americans. The indignation of the westerners blazed out in fury. Jefferson was forced to do something besides write letters. Orders were at once sent to Livingston, the American Minister at Paris, to buy the strip of coast extending eastward from the Mississippi and including New Orleans, and Congress voted money to pay for it. For a time Livingston pressed the matter upon the at- tention of the French government with great pertinacity but without success. But on April nth, 1803, Talleyrand startled him by inquiring "whether the United States wished to have the whole of Louisiana? " Two days later Monroe of Virginia, who had been sent abroad with a species of roving commission, reached Paris; but the actual conduct of the negotiation re- mained in Livingston's hands. Eventually the Americans, ex- ceeding their instructions, bought Louisiana for the sum of fifteen million dollars, of which three and three-quarter millions were to be used to pay claims of Americans for spoliations committed by France since 1800. The precise motive which actuated Napoleon in making this sale seems impossible to discover. The reason usually assigned by writers is that foreseeing war with England he could not hope to retain Louisiana and preferred that it should fall to the United States rather than to England. This however does not seem to be an adequate explanation, as the fate of Louisiana at the close of a war would depend mainly upon Napoleon's success or failure in Europe. It would be interesting to ascertain Jefferson's feelings at the moment the report of the purchase reached him. For years he had been pro- claiming that the federal government possessed such powers 172 The ycjfersoiiian Republicans. [Chap. only as were expressly delegated to it by the Constitution. But there was nothing in the Constitution authorizing the United States to buy land. In^ the first moment of surprise, he declared that an amendment to the Constitution would be necessary. But the impolicy of thus delaying the ratification of the treaty was evident. He laid aside his scruples for the moment and nothing was ever done in the matter. Yet the purchase of Louisiana with all its possibilities was an act far exceeding in doubtfulness anything the Federalists had ever done. The limits of the new acquisition were even more dubious. The treaty described the territory ceded as "the colony or province of Louisiana, with the same extent as it now has in the hands of Spain, and that it had when France possessed it, and such as it should be after the treaties subse- quently entered into between Spain and other powers." The United States government immediately asserted that it included West Florida, but did not press its claim to Texas, or the country between the settlements in the Mississippi basin and the Rio Grande. Mr Henry Adams has recently discovered the orders issued by the French government, when it expected to take possession of the country for itself. This document shows that France and Spain understood the cession to include Texas and to exclude any part of West Florida. Li view of these facts, it is difficult to describe the boundaries of Louisiana or to state its area. It may be said, however, to have included the whole western half of the Mississippi valley, the Island of New Orleans, and the country between the Mississippi and the Rio Grande. It also may be regarded as having given the people of the United States the opportunity of acquiring Oregon by rendering the colonization of that region more easy. The general satisfaction felt by the people at the peaceful , „ acquisition of this domain and the settlement Jefferson re- ^ elected Pres- of all disputes as to the navigation of the Missis- 1 ent, I 04. sippi increased if possible Jefferson's popularity. VI-] Jefferson's Second Term, 1 805-9. ^73 He was re-elected President in 1804 by one hundred and sixty-two votes against fourteen cast for Pinckney, the Federalist candidate. Even New Hampshire and Massa- chusetts gave their votes to Jefferson. Connecticut and Delaware were the only States whose entire vote was given to the Federalists. Two things attract the student's attention during Jefferson's second administration: Burr's conspiracy, and „ ^ -' ' Burr s con- the complicated relations with Great Britain and spiracy and France. Aaron Burr, the late Vice-President, was now thoroughly discredited politically by his double- dealing with both parties. Socially he was an outcast, for the killing of Hamilton in a duel had aroused the moral feelings of the people in the North and may be said to have put an end to duelling in that part of the country. He was in debt and without any means of support, as he could not resume his law practice in New York. He turned his uneasy eyes to the South-west and there saw a field of operations commensurate with his desires and his abilities. What Burr really had in mind has never been ascertained. At times he spoke of becoming an Emperor with descent to his daughter Theodosia. At another time, the scheme seems to have been to separate the country west of the mountains from the older States on the Atlantic seaboard, and to found a new republic in the wilder- ness, with Burr, perhaps, as President. It is not unlikely that the real design of the plotters was never disclosed. At all events, the conspiracy ended in complete failure. Wilkinson, the American commander in Louisiana, at the last moment determined to be true to his country and false to his friend. Burr, finding his scheme hopeless, abandoned his comrades and tried to reach Florida through the sparsely settled country between the Mississippi and the peninsula of Florida. He was recognized in a frontier town and taken to Richmond for trial. The end was as ludicrous as any part of the scheme, for Chief 174 The yejfersonian Republicans. [Chap. Justice John Marshall, who presided at the trial, ruled that an overt act of treason within the meaning of the Constitution must be first proved and then Burr connected with it. As Burr had never been able to levy war the prosecution for treason stopped at that point. Other prosecutions for misdemeanour shared a similar fate, and many years later Burr died quietly in New York at the advanced age of eighty years. The renewal of the European contest brought in its train _ ., newvexations and hardships to the United States, Commercial '^ ' relations, 1783- and the War of 1812 was largely the result of the ' °^' ill-feeling thus aroused. It will be well to go back a few years and to consider as one subject the commercial relations of the United States with foreign powers before 1812. %-The Americans seem to have expected to enjoy as an inde- pendent nation the same rights of trade which they had enjoyed as members of the British Empire. In this they were dis- appointed. The traffic which they especially desired was that with the English West India Islands. As those islands did not produce sufficient food for their own inhabitants the British government permitted a few commodities to be imported from the United States in British bottoms, provided payment were made in molasses or rum — payment in sugar being forbidden. The Americans moreover carried on a large and profitable trade with the French and Spanish West Indies — whose direct intercourse with the mother lands was now difficult, owing to the vigilance of the British cruisers. Landing these French and Spanish colonial goods on an American wharf and paying duty, the Americans would then place them again on shipboard — perhaps on the same vessel from which they had been unloaded — receive the greater part of the duty back in the shape of a "drawback," and sail away for a French or Spanish port. One of these vessels, the Polly, was seized and carried to Great Britain. Sir William Scott, better known perhaps by his later title of Lord Stowell, decided VI.] Commercial Relations, 1 783-1 804. 175 as Judge in the British Admiralty Court that voyages made under the above circumstances had been broken, and that the Polly and her cargo must be regarded as American. There was also in existence in those days an agreement between certain nations of Europe known as "The Rule of War of 1756." This was to the effect that no nation could enjoy in time of war a trade denied to it in time of peace. Under the operation of this rule, the Americans had no right to enter or leave French or Spanish West India ports. In the winter of 1793-94, the British West India cruisers seized many of the American vessels in the West Indies. President Washington protested, and by Jay's Treaty this matter was settled practically in favour of the Americans, though direct trade between the French Islands and France in American bottoms was prohibited. Under these favourable circumstances, American commerce flourished beyond measure. This was the condition of affairs when the Peace of Amiens (1802) put a period to the first part of the great war. Great Britain entered on the second part of that struggle in a stern frame of mind. There was especially strong feeling against the continuance of the favours shown to the Americans. The English merchants protested, and Sir James Stephen, one of the ablest men in England, wrote a remark- able book, entitled War in Disguise, or the Frauds of the Neutral Flag. Under this pressure from the merchants, and provided with such a good statement of the British side of the case, Mr Pitt decided to enforce the "Rule of War of 1756." Sir William Scott also at about the same time changed his mind, and in the case of the Essex decided that much more was required to break a voyage than he had thought necessary at the time of the decision in the case of the Polly. Seizures were now made right and left, and war against the United States existed in all but name by the act of England. The reply of the United States was a Non-importation Act, to take effect after nine months — "a dose of chicken-broth," as one member 1/6 TJie Jeffersonian Republicans. [Chap. of Congress described it, "to be taken nine months hence." Before that time came, the matter had assumed a much more serious phase. On October 21st, 1805, the English won the memorable G t B "t " victory off Cape Trafalgar. In the following and Napoleon, December, Napoleon defeated England's allies ^ °'*~' ° ■ in the great battle of Austerlitz. It was now evident that Napoleon could not attack Great Britain directly; but, on the other hand, neither Great Britain nor her allies could accomplish much against Napoleon on land. The two combatants thereupon seemed to have determined to starve one another into submission. In the carrying out of this policy, American ship-owners were the principal sufferers. The sympathies of the modern student of American history are somewhat divided as between the two belligerents. On the one hand, the Napoleonic earthquake made possible social and political reforms with which he is in full accord. On the other hand, the heroic resistance of the British people saved the New World as well as the Old World from the evils of a military despotism. The first step in this three-cornered contest — for the United States soon became an active participant, was blockade " and the issuiug an Order in Council (May i6th, the Berlin De- 1806), declaring a blockade of the coast of the Cree, 1806. ^ ■ ^ ?, -r-m rr-.! -11 Continent from Brest to the Elbe. This blockade was enforced only between the Seine and Ostend, and was re- pealed as to the German coasts on September 27th of the same year. It is sometimes known as Fox's blockade, and was an effective blockade between the two points above named. Na- poleon began his part of the campaign of starvation by the Berlin Decree (November 21st, 1806). In this decree the British Islands are declared to be "in a state of blockade," no com- merce whatever being allowed with them. Furthermore, all trade in British merchandise was forbidden. On the first day VI.] TJie Belligerents and the Nentrals. lyy of the next month (December, 1806) a treaty was signed at London between the United States and Great Britain, which was designed to take the place of Jay's Treaty, soon to expire by limitation. This new treaty was very unfavourable to the United States. Among other things, it contained a provision that the "Rule of 1756 " would not be regarded as in force in respect to goods upon which a two per cent, ad valorem duty had been paid in the United States — provided it should not be returned as a drawback. There was no mention of impress- ment in the treaty, nor was indemnity for spoliations committed by the British provided for. It is difficult to see what reasons could have induced Monroe and Pinckney, the American ne- gotiators, to sign such a treaty. It is even more difficult to discover why they should have consented to receive a supple- mentary note to the effect that the British government would not carry out this treaty unless America should resist the Berlin Decree. Jefferson consulted with a few Senators and sent the treaty back to England without submitting it to the Senate. On January 7th, 1807, Great Britain's answer to the Berlin Decree appeared in the form of an Order in ^^^ British Council closing the coasting trade of the Conti- Orders in nent to neutrals — so far as ports under French °""" ' control were concerned. Late in the same year (November 1 1 th, 1807) another Order in Council was issued, the effect of which was to secure the condemnation 9f any American vessel seized while on a voyage to any European port closed to British vessels, unless such vessel had first touched at a British port. Napoleon, on his part, in the Milan Decree (December 17th, 1807) declared that any ship which had obeyed the above order w%s good prize if seized in any port under his control. At this time, Napoleon was the virtual masterof all the continental ports except those of Sweden, Norway, and Turkey, and the British were supreme on the ocean. These orders and decrees, therefore, provided for the speedy annihilation of American shipping and C. A. 12 178 The Jeffersonian Republicans. [Chap. this seems to have been the object of the last British Order in Council if one may judge from a perusal of Mr Percival's cor- respondence on the subject. The official reason as stated was a desire to compel the United States to retaliate upon the French government. The vessels bearing these later Orders and Decrees reached the United States at about the same time. Jefferson had always maintained that nations could be com- pelled by appeals to their interests as effectively, and much more cheaply, as by appeals to their fears. He now had an opportunity to put his theories into practice. Meantime, how- ever, another matter had excited the prejudices of the Americans against Great Britain. This was the dispute as to impressment. Ever since the beginning of the contest between France and Great Britain in 1793, British sea captains pressment had Stopped American vessels and taken from ontroversy. them for service in the British navy British sub- jects found on board. If the matter had stopped there, it would have been bad enough, as the American government from the beginning denied the right of search. But the matter did not stop there. In the first place it was difficult to distinguish between an American and an Englishman. Indeed, the fate of many American seamen was a hard one during this period of strife. The English naval captain impressed him because he looked like an Englishman and the French authorities impris- oned him for the same reason. Secondly, the English govern- ment refused to recognize naturalization as doing away with the inalienable allegiance due from all British subjects. The doctrine of inalienable allegiance was then the recognized doc- trine of European nations; but it seemed a little strange that the British government should have held so strongly to it in view of the Acts of Parliament passed before the Revolution, naturalizing foreigners after short periods of residence in the colonies. It was, as a matter of fact, upon these Acts of Par- liament that the American practice of naturalization was based. VI.] The Impressment Controversy. 179 There were abuses in the system, however, which no doubt irritated the English officers. English seamen deserted at every American port and were encouraged to do so in many States. They were provided with State naturalization papers, in some places as a matter of course. The whole crew of one British man-of-war is said to have deserted, and in a single port there were twelve British vessels detained at one time by reason of wholesale desertions. As the contest progressed, the larger American ports were blockaded by the British cruisers, which stopped every vessel going in or out and impressed seamen almost at will. There were at times several thousand native Americans serving on British war vessels. Finally on June 22, 1807, the matter was brought to a crisis by the British ship Leopard firing on the American frigate Chesapeake. The Chesapeake was just out of the hands of the dockyard au- thorities, everything was in confusion, and it was only by means of a coal from the cook's galley that one gun was fired in return to save the vessel's honour before her flag, was hauled down. The Leopard's officers took from her three American citizens and one English deserter, and the Chesapeake then made the best of her way back to Norfolk, almost a wreck. A thrill of indignation swept through the United States only equalled by the indignation which had been aroused by the conflict at Lexington in 1775. The President issued a Proclamation ordering all British war vessels out of the waters of the United States, and forbidding any intercourse with them or the furnishing them with any supplies. Redress was demanded, and an attempt was made to couple with the Chesapeake affair the whole question of impress- ment. The British government disavowed the action of the Admiral by whose orders the outrage had been committed, but refused to give up impressment. The matter there- fore was left to embitter the already critical relations of the two countries. It was while affairs were in this unsettled 12 — 2 l8o TJie yejfersonian Republicans. [Chap. condition that the Order in Council of November nth, 1807, was issued. Jefferson recommended an embargo, and Congress, without debate of any importance, passed an Embargo Embargo Act (December 23, 1807) forbidding American ^° "^^' vessels to leave the United States for foreign ports, and foreign vessels were not permitted to take any cargo except what was actually on board. The original act was amended from time to time in the direction of greater stringency. The last attempt to enforce it was by the passage of the Enforcement Act of January, 1808. The provisions of this act will serve to show the great difficulty experienced in trying to carry out this em- bargo policy. The Enforcement Act required, for example, that the owners of coasting vessels, before the cargo was placed on board, should give bonds to six times the value of the vessel and proposed cargo, obliging them to land the goods in the United States. The collectors of customs were authorized to seize goods " in any manner apparently on their way toward the territory of a foreign nation or the vicinity thereof. " Under this act, as some- one said, the collector of customs at St Alban's, Vermont, was authorized to seize a Vermont cow walking " toward the vicinity of Canada." The embargo brought about the temporary ruin of Jefferson's popularity and the revival of the Federalist party in New England. It also gave rise to a secession party in that section which played directly into the hands of England. Indeed Lord Castlereagh considered that in so far as the embargo injured the Republican party and helped the Federalists, it operated directly in the interests of Great Britain. From a political point of view, therefore, this policy was a failure. Furthermore, it compelled the Republicans to abandon the ground of 1798, and to adopt broad construc- tion theories in the interpretation of the Constitution. From a national stand-point this was a great gain, but from a Jeffer- sonian point of view it must be reckoned among the failures. VI.] Jefferson's Embargo Policy. i8i The embargo produced no effect on France — except as it served Napoleon for a useful pretext to justify Effect of the two later decrees. The earlier of these was embargo on England and issued at Bayonne (April 17,1808), and directed France, the sequestration of all vessels flying the United States flag on the ground that no American vessels could honestly navigate the ocean while the embargo was in force. The other decree, that of Rambouillet (18 10), directed the confiscation of all vessels then in French hands. As to Great Britain, however, the case was different. The embargo no doubt contributed to bring on a commercial crisis in England. Prices of Continental and American goods rose to prohibitive limits. At the same time, the markets of the world being largely closed to her, prices of English goods declined. The Americans, especially the New Englanders, began to manufacture for themselves and it seemed not impossible that the American market might be permanently lost. Since the sufferers among the manufactur- ing population in England had no political power, it may be said that the embargo as regards Great Britain was a com- plete failure. The sufferers from the embargo policy in America, unlike their fellow-sufferers in England, possessed direct political power and before long exercised it. The in the United embargo bore more heavily upon Jefferson's own *^*^^' political friends in Virginia than upon anyone else. Virginia's tobacco crop was her principal source of wealth ; and for several years the surplus over the needs of the American market was unsaleable. Many planters were ruined outright and many more were seriously crippled; but they bore their injuries with patience. Not so the New Englanders. The shipowner saw his vessels rotting at the wharves at the very moment when freights were at the highest. It was of no use to tell him that the government was protecting him from loss by compelling him to keep quiet. He was quite willing to take the risk and pocket 1 82 The yeffersonian Republicans. [Chap. the profits, trusting to the government to secure indemnification in case his ship should be captured. But the New Englander was not the man to stand idly by and complain. At first he tried to evade the law. When the Enforcement Acts at last made that unprofitable, he turned his attention to manufacturing — and the manufacturing industries of New England date back to this time. During this period he omitted no opportunity to complain against the Jeffersonian government. The fruits of six years of conciliation were lost in a very short time. Portions of the country, indeed, seemed on the eve of rebellion, and it became evident to Jefferson by January 1809 — when he had but three months more to serve — that the embargo, whether it were a success, as he declared, or a failure, as his enemies asserted, must be repealed and that soon. Madison had meantime been elected President, and to him Re eai of Jeffersou left the practical conduct of affairs the embargo, during the last few months of his official life. ' °^' Madison planned to have the embargo removed in June, 1809. But the subject of repeal was no sooner brought up in Congress, than it became evident that a majority was in favour of an immediate repeal, and the embargo was removed on March 4th, 1809, the day of Madison's inaugu- ration. In its place Congress provided for non-intercourse with France and Great Britain and their respective adherents and dependents. Historical writers have been accustomed to wax merry over - „ , Mr Jefferson's policy of substituting commercial Jefferson s -" r j o commercial restrictions for war; but it may well be asked if ^° ''^^" the facts of the world's history from 1801 to 1809 justify this view. The nations of Europe were at that time war-mad. Rules of conduct which had obtained for centuries were thrown to the winds by the master despot. The British nation, regarding itself as the saviour of the world, was disposed to treat the neutral as if he were one of the saved. VI.] Jejfersons Embargo Policy. 183 It would seem that Jefferson deserves credit for keeping his country free from war at such a time. Finally, it must be re- membered that his policy was not the only policy that failed of its expected results in that time of delirium. It may also be pointed out that the Jeffersonian system of commercial warfare as a matter of fact brought about the repeal of the Orders in Council on June 17th, 1812 — one day before war was declared against Great Britain by the United States. Had the submarine cable suddenly come into being at that time, the War of 181 2 probably would not have taken place. CHAPTER VII. THE SECOND WAR OF INDEPENDENCE AND THE ERA OF GOOD FEELING. For a time events appeared to turn in Madison's favour. The begin- Tlie New Englandcrs ceased from sedition and ningof Madi- exerted themselves to make money by manu- Bon s Admin- _ -^ •' istration. facturing — for English goods were still excluded from the country; and, also, from a most profitable commerce which was carried on with the few European countries not under the control of either France or Great Britain. It even seemed for a moment as if England would enter again into friendly relations with the United States. A treaty was negotiated with Mr Erskine, the British Minister at Washington, on terms satisfactory to the American government. But Erskine had exceeded his power. The British government refused to ratify the treaty, and recalled their envoy; and Madison, who had suspended non-inter- course with Great Britain, was obliged to issue a Proclamation again imposing it. Erskine 's successor was a Mr Jackson, who had represented Great Britain at Copenhagen at the time of the seizure of the Danish fleet. He had then used language to the Prince Royal of Denmark for which King George III is said to have remarked that Jackson should have been kicked down- stairs. He now accused Madison of having knowingly deceived Erskine; and, repeating the assertion, Madison declined to receive any more communications from him. He returned J 84. Chap. VII.] Madison s First Term, 1809-13. 185 home, delaying on the road to encourage the Federalists of New England in their intrigues against their government. Non-intercourse did not seem to be producing any marked effect on either of the belligerents. On May i st, commercial 18 10, Congress substituted for it a bill known in policy modi- American political language as Macon's Bill, ^ ' ^ '°' No. 2. This provided that non-intercourse should cease. In case, however, one belligerent should revoke its decrees or orders and the other should not do so, it was provided that the President should reimpose non-intercourse against the of- feiiding nation. Then followed a most distressing diplomatic contest, in the course of which Madison was entirely over- reached by Napoleon. That master of duplicity offered to revoke his decrees on November ist, 18 10, so far as American shipping was concerned, provided Great Britain should rescind the Orders in Council before that day. Lord Welles- ley, the British Foreign Minister at the time, offered to re- scind the orders after Napoleon had revoked his decrees. Madison, however, understanding that the French decrees really were withdrawn, suspended non-intercourse with both countries. It will be remembered that the American government had interpreted the provisions of the Louisiana Pur- seizure of chase to include West Florida. But against this West Florida, the Spanish government had protested, and Tal- leyrand had stated that the Spanish interpretation was the true one. As long as Spain remained an independent nation, the Americans were not disposed to push their claim. Now (1810) it seemed probable that Spain would become a dependence of either France or Great B/itain. The occupation of West Florida by either of those powers would have menaced the control of the Mississippi by the United States. Madison decided to take possession of West Florida. A portion was occupied in 1810 and the remainder in 181 2. The United 1 86 The Second War of Independence [Chap, States had not the shadow of a claim to East Florida, or that province would probably have been seized also. When Madison laid down the office of Secretary of State to become President he wished to promote Albert changes^ Gallatin — the ablest man in the cabinet — from the Treasury to the State Department. He was unable to do this, however, owing to the opposition of a faction led by Senator Smith of Maryland, whose brother Robert Smith was Secretary of the Navy. Gallatin had earned the enmity of this clique by condemning in severe terms the inefficient and wasteful management of the Navy Department by Robert Smith. So powerful were the Smiths, however, that the President was obliged, not only to put aside his plan as to Gallatin, but even to appoint Robert Smith Secretary of State. The latter could not write a proper state paper, and Madison was accustomed to write the important despatches himself, Robert Smith copying and signing them. The charter of the United States Bank was about to expire, and Gallatin desired to recharter it, for, as things stood, it was indispensable to the efficient management of the Treasury. Robert Smith did not oppose the plan in the cabinet, but with his brother's aid secured its rejection by Congress. This was more than Gallatin could bear, and he forwarded his resignation to the President. Now, at last, the patient Madison was aroused. He asked Gallatin to remain, removed Smith, and requested Monroe, who had opposed the government since the rejection of his treaty with England, to take the vacant post. Monroe accepted, to the indignation of many of his friends, and again entered political life. During these years of embargo and non-intercourse the Republicans had suffered many defeats in Nev/ The Gerry- England. Thev now had control in Massachu- mander. ° •' setts. To perpetuate their hold on the upper house of the legislature of that State, they rearranged the sena- torial districts to secure as many Republican districts, and hence vii.] Madison's First Term, 1809-13. 187 as many senators, as possible. Some of the new districts were of a most extraordinary shape, resembling in outline those quaint monsters, salamanders and the like, with which mediaeval map-makers were wont to dot the unknown parts of the sea. To these the Federalists gave the name of gerrymander, as a satire on the Republican governor, Elbridge Gerry, who signed the bill. In this connection Gerry is still remembered among all English-speaking peoples. In May, 181 1, the American frigate President and the British sloop-of-war Little Belt, owing to some _, ^ . ' & The President misunderstanding not now to be discovered, fired and Little Beit, on each other in the darkness of the early evening ^ "' and the Little Belt was badly crippled. This affair recon- ciled the American people to accept reparation for the Chesa- peake outrage, and accordingly the American citizens seized by the Leopard in 1807 were restored to their country. To Americans of the present day, this whole matter of impress- ment seems extraordinary. The press-gang saved the British government a few thousand pounds in seamen's wages, at the cost of great hardship to Englishmen and oftentimes to their families as well. It did more than anything else to keep alive the spirit of resentment on the part of Americans towards the British nation, which was one of the principal causes of the War of 181 2. Another cause of that war was the conviction, which obtained especially among the people of the North-west, that the British authorities in Canada were at the bottom of the Indian troubles of the period. Among the Indians of Indiana Territory were two brothers, named Tecumthe and "the Prophet." Under . ^ The Battle their lead the Indians protested against the of Tippecanoe, United States securing more land in that region ^^^°' from individual tribes. They maintained, on the contrary, that the land belonged to the Indians as a whole, and could only be acquired by general consent. Following a refusal 1 88 TJie Second War of hidependence. [Chap. to acknowledge the justness of this argument, murders and thefts became common. The settlers in the North-west were alarmed. William Henry Harrison was then the governor of that region. Gathering a small army composed of regulars and volunteers, he marched to Tecumthe's town of Tippecanoe. While encamped near that place he was attacked at night by a large body of Indians, who were beaten off with great loss. They then abandoned their village. Tecumthe, who was absent at the moment of the battle of Tippecanoe (1810), joined the British in Canada, and this gave colour to the assertions of the Americans that he was a British emissary. A few days before this conflict the Twelfth Congress met at Washington. The House of Representatives was ciareY 1812 "^^^ controlled by Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun, and other young men, to whom the theories of Jefferson and the founders of the Republican party were hardly more than traditions. They had had little or no part in the passing of the embargo, and believed that war with Great Britain was the only way out of the difficulties which surrounded -the United States. They won the President to their side — he was now anxious as to his re-nomination — and war was declared against England on June i8th, 1812. The events which led up to the war have been narrated in the previous pages. Perhaps war was necessary, as Clay asserted. It is not probable that it would have taken place, however, had the British government and people treated the Americans as equals. For example, Mr Canning, in conversation and in his official correspondence with the American ministers at London, used language which made forgiveness without humiliation practically impossible. The following extract from a speech made in the House of Commons will serve to show the tone adopted towards the American people by at least one British minister, and that a conciliatory man. This diplomatist asserted in 181 2 that "generally speaking, they [the Americans] were not a people VII.] Causes of the War. 189 we should be proud to acknowledge as our relations." Later, in 1 8 13, Lord Liverpool, the Prime Minister, declared that America " ought to have looked to this country as the guardian power to which she was indebted not only for her comforts, not only for her rank in the scale of civilization, but for her very existence." Bearing these speeches in mind, it is easier to understand the exultation of the Americans over the capture of the Guernere by the Constitution, and, also, the surprise ex- pressed in the English papers when it was announced that English frigates must sail in pairs for safety against American "line-of-battle-ships in disguise." The War of i8i2waswaged by one free people against another free people in the interest of Napoleon, the real enemy of them both. It diverted England's strength at a time when it was sorely needed in Europe, and it might have been prevented at any time before 181 2 by a few conciliatory words followed by conciliatory deeds. It is impossible to formulate even a rough estimate of the strength of the two combatants. It is equally ^ _ ^ ■' Campaigns impossible to state the reasons for the failure of 1812, 1813, of both parties to accomplish their objects. The ^""^ ^^'4- people of the North-west regarded the conquest of Canada as the only means by which an end could be put to the Indian troubles, and that conquest was begun in a spirit of rashness and with an amount of ignorance of the character of the undertaking which shows how completely the lessons of the Revolutionary War had been forgotten. Several half-trained armies, led by incapable generals, Hull, Dearborn, Van Ren- sselaer, and Smyth, crossed the border. The British General Brock and other able officers, with a small but efficient body of troops, soon put an end to the invasion and began a counter attack on the United States (18 12). It is to be regretted that the British were aided at this time by a considerable body of Indians. A victory of a green-timber navy under Perry (18 13) enabled the Americans to regain control of the original territory 190 TJie Second War of Independeiice. [Chap. of the United States, The abdication of Napoleon (April, 1814) freed the hands of the British, and the United States was invaded from three separate directions. On the American side the army was now placed in better hands. Jacob Brown, a Quaker with slight experience in the field, was given com- mand in the North. He was a man of energy and was ably seconded by his two brigadiers, Winfield Scott and Ripley. There were several conflicts, those at Lundy's Lane and Fort Erie being creditable to both sides. Indeed, the former, where a small force of Americans opposed about the same number of Wellington's veterans in the darkness of night, is the most extraordinary conflict of the war. But Brown accomplished little more than to hold his own. Meantime a well-appointed army under Prevost had marched southward on the line of Lake Champlain. But MacDonough's victory gave the control of the water to the Americans, and Prevost was obliged to return to Canada. The same summer (18 14) witnessed the burning of Wash- „. „ . ington by a force commanded by General Ross The Burning . of Washing- and Admiral Cochrane. Landing on the banks ton, I 14. ^^ ^^ Patuxent, the British marched to Washing- ton through a sparsely-inhabited country, meeting with only slight opposition at Bladensburg. They remained at Washing- ton long enough to burn the public buildings — save one, and then retired in great haste to their shipping. This incendiarism was perpetrated by the orders of the commanders, and under their personal direction. It was said to be in retaliation for the burning of the Assembly House at Toronto (then called York) ; but that act had been the work of private soldiers, and had been disavowed by the commanding officer : and it had already been amply avenged by the burning of Buffalo by the British. The destruction of the public buildings at Washington aroused indignation in London — one paper sorrowfully remarking: "The Cossacks spared Paris, but we spared not the capital of VII.] The Campaigns i V^irginia. [The authenticity of the instrument was further attested by the signatures of thirty-eight members.] THE AMENDMENTS. ARTICLES in addition to and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution. ^ 1 This heading appears only in the joint resolution submitting the first ten amendments. Appendix. 331 [ARTICLE I.] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. [ARTICLE II.] A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. [ARTICLE III.] No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. [ARTICLE IV.] The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. [ARTICLE v.] No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger ; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb ; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be de- prived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. 332 Appendix. [ARTICLE VI.] In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which dis- trict shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation ; to be con- fronted with the witnesses against him ; to have compulsory pro- cess for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. [ARTICLE VII.] In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. [ARTICLE VIII.] Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted . [ARTICLE IX.] The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. [ARTICLE X.] The powers not delegated to the United States by the Consti- tution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people.^ [ARTICLE XL] The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State. ^ 1 Amendments First to Tenth appear to have been in force from Nov. 3, 1791. 2 Proclaimed to be in force Jan. 8, 1 798. Appendix. 333 [ARTICLE XIL] The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves ; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the nmnber of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate ; — The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Repre- sentatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted ; — The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed ; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote ; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. — The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President ; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office 334 Appendix. of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of th2 United States.i ARTICLE XIII. Section i. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. ^ ARTICLE XIV. Section i. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States ; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the ■whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the pro- portion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold 1 Proclaimed to be in force Sept. 25, 1804. 2 Proclaimed to be in force Dec. 18, 1865. Bears the unnecessary approval of the President. Appendix. 335 any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave ; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. Section 5 . The Congress shall have power to enforce, by ap- propriate legislation, the provisions of this article.^ ARTICLE XV. Section i. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servi- tude. — Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. — ^ 1 Proclaimed to be in force July 28, 1868. 2 Proclaimed to be in force Mar. 30, 1870. 336 Appendix. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE. [For more extended bibliographical information reference should be made to Winsor's Narrative and Critical History of America (8 vols.). This work extends only to 1850 ; Vols. V, VI, VII, and VIII cover the period from 1760 — 1850. Less extensive works are B. A. Hinsdale's The Study of American History, and Channing and Hart's Guide to the Study of American History. '\ Comprehensive Works. There is no good comprehensive work covering the period under review. Gay's Bryanfs Popular History is the best book, but it is not well proportioned. The Epochs of American History, edited by Albert Bushnell Hart, treat the period from a more constitutional point of view. These volumes are well equipped with maps, bibliographies and other "helps" to readers. The American History Series, now in course of publication, will ultimately form a more or less connected work by different hands. The Ajnerican Statesme7i Series, edited by John T. Morse, Jr., takes the place to some extent of a more formal work. But many of the volumes are tinged with the federalist views of the editor and his collaborators. T. W. Higgin- son's Larger History of the United States is a readable series of essays on the period before 1830. Historical Geography. There is no good work on the historical geography of America. Winsor, in his America and other works, provides an abundant supply of fac-similes of contemporary maps. The maps in Hart's Epochs of American History have been gathered into a thin volume, without text, entitled : Epoch Maps. They are suited to the needs of the ordinary student, but are on a very small scale. The American maps in Gardiner's School Atlas are poor and untrustworthy. The American Revolution. General "Works. Frothingham's Rise of the Republic ; Lodge's Short History of the English Colonies (contains also a useful Appendix. 337 summary of the colonial institutions) ; Fiske's American Revolu- tion ; George Bancroft's United States ; Hildreth's United States ; Pitkin's United States; J. C. Hamilton's Republic of the United States; the "narrative" portions of Winsor's America (Vols. V, VI and VII) ; G. W. Greene's Historical View. Among the more extended works, Lecky's England (Vols. Ill and IV) will be found most satisfactory. Other British works are Mahon's England, which contains an ultra-British view ; the histories of Massey (Whig) and Adolphus (Tory) ; Seeley's Expansion of England; Merivale's Colonization ; Lewis's Government of Dependencies (contains an interesting old-time view) ; May's Constitntional History of England; Burke's Fliiropean Settlements in America and his speeches on American affairs ; Bernard's Letters on the Trade and Government of America. Special Works. Gordon's American Revolution ; Graham's United States ; Ramsay's Revolution ; Chalmers's Introduction to the Revolt; Hutchinson's Massachusetts (Vol. Ill) ; Lossing's Field-Book of the Revolution ; Carrington's Battles of the Revo- lution; Dawson's Battles of the United States (Vol. I) ; Beatson's Naval and Military Memoirs of Great Britain ; Stedman's Ameri- can War ; Moore's Diary of the Revolution ; Jones's New York in the Revolutiottary War (a Tory view) ; Galloway's Rise and Progress of the Rebellion (another Tory account) ; E. J. Lowell's The Hessians in the Revolutio7i ; Greene's Gerinan Element ; Tyler's American Literature ; Sabine's Loyalists ; Ryerson's Loyalists. For Otis's speech on the Writs of Assistance, see Ouincy's Reports, appendix by Horace Gray ; John Adams's Diary in his Works, Vol. II. Henry's speech in the Parson's cause is best described in W. W. Henry's Life and Speeches of Patrick Heiiry, Vol. I. For other statements of the American theory of the constitution of the Empire and for the American theory of govern- ment see Otis's The Rights of the Colonies asserted and proved (1764); Stephen Hopkins's The Rights of the Colonies examined (1765), reprinted at London (1766) as The Grievances of the American Colonies candidly examined ; Richard Bland's Enqidry in the Rights of the British Colonies (1769) ; Thomas Jefferson's A Summary View of the Rights of British America (reprinted by C. A. 22 33^ Appendix. Hart and Channing as American History Leaflet, No. ii). The authors of these essays continually refer to Locke's Essay on Governfnent ; 'Hodke.fs Ecclesiastical Polity ; Harrington's Oceana, and Montesquieu's E Esprit des Lois. The Virginia Resolves (1769) and the Declaration of Independence (1776) are printed in the appendix of the present volume. It is impossible in a bibliographical note like the present to mention even the more important original sources. For them the student should go to Winsor's Hand-Book of the Revolution or to one of the bibliographies mentioned at the head of this list. The names of a few of the most important collections may be given : Force's American Archives ; Niles's Principals and Acts ; Journals and Secret Journals of the Continental Congress ; The Parliamentary History ; Cavendish's Debates ; Rogers's Protests of the Lords ; Almon's Prior Documents ; and Almon's Remem- brancer ; Donne, Correspondence between George III and Lord North ; The Bedford Papers. For the Diplomacy of the Revolution, see Lyman's and Tres- cott's works on the Diplomacy of the United States ; Wharton's Digest of /nternational Law ; Wharton's and Sparks's editions of the Diplomatic Correspondence of the Revolution ; Treaties and Conventions between the United States and Other Powers, and Davis's " Notes " appended thereto. See also the biographies of Franklin, Jay, John Adams, and Silas Deane, noted below. The United States, 1783 — 1865. Comprehensive Works covering the whole field : Schouler's United States (5 vols.) ; Goldwin Smith's United States (a political study) ; Stanwood's History of Presidential Elections ; Von Hoist's Constitutional History of the United States (8 vols.) ; Wise, Seven Decades; Professor Johnston's articles in Lalor's Cyclopcedia of Political Science. Special Works (arranged chronologically) . Fiske's Critical Period (1783 — 1789) ; G. T. Curtis's Constitu- tional History (1783 — 1789) ; Hildreth's United States, 2nd Series or Vols. IV— VI (1783— 1821) ; McMaster, History of the People (1783 — 1821) ; Tucker's United States (a Southern view, stops at Appendix. 339 1840) ; Gibbs's Administrations of Washington and Adams; Henry Adams's United States, 9 vols. (1800 — 1817) ; Benton's Thirty Vears^ View (1820 — 1850); Rhodes's United States (1850 — 1 861) ; Taussig's Tariff History. Lossing's Field-Book of the War of 181 2; Cooper's Naval History ; James's Naval History ; Roosevelt's Naval War of 1812. J. G. Blaine's Twenty Years in Congress (1840 — 1885) ; Jefferson Davis's Rise and Fall of the Confederate Govern7nent ; Goodell's Slavery and Anti-Slavery ; Greeley's Slavery Extension and American Conflict; Olmsted's books on life in the South, espe- cially his Cotton Kingdoiii ; Wilson's Rise and Fall of the Slave Power; Dodge's Bird's-Eye View of the Civil War; Ropes's Story of the Civil War; Scribner's series of Cai7tpaigns of the Civil War; Stephens's Constitutional View of the War between the States (from a Southern standpoint); Pollard's Lost Cause; Eggleston's A RebeVs Recollections; and A Rebel War Clerk's Diary. Constitutional Treatises. Pomeroy's Introduction ; Cooley's General Principles ; Story's and Kent's Comme7itaries ; Von Hoist's Cojistitutional Law; Thayer's Cases ott ConstitJitional Law. In this connection may be enumerated de Tocqueville's Detnocracy z« America ; Bryce's American Commonwealth ; Fiske's Civil Governmejit ; Hart's Federal Government ; Jameson's Con- stitutional Cojiventions ; and Borgeaud's Constitutions . Biographies (covering the whole period, arranged alphabetically under Americans and Foreigners) . Americans: Adams, John (1735 — 1826) : Works edited with a memoir by C. F. Adams. Vol. I contains the "Life " by the editor ; Vols. II and III the Diary and Autobiography. See also Fajniliar Letters of fohn Adams and his Wife, and a biography by J. T. Morse, Jr. Adams, John Quincy (1767 — 1848) : Memoirs con- tains his Diary, which is a most important document of its kind. Biographies by Josiah Quincy, Seward, and Morse. Adams, Samuel (1722 — 1803) : Life and Services by Wm. V. Wells. Also a brief biography by Hosmer. Arnold, Benedict (1741 — 1801) : by I. N. Arnold. Buchanan, James (1791 — 1868) : by G. T. Curtis. Burr, Aaron (1756 — 1836) : by Davis and by Parton. 22 — 2 340 Appendix. Calhoun, John Caldwell (17S2 — 1850) : Works (6 vols.). Biog- raphy by Von Hoist. Cass, Lewis (1782 — 1866): by McLaughlin. Chase, Salmon Portland (1808 — 1873) '• by Schucker. Clay, Henry (1777 — 1852) : Works (6 vols.). Biographies by Mallory and Schurz. Dickinson, John (1732 — 1808) : Life and Letters by Stille. Franklin, Benjamin (1706 — 1790) : Works edited by Sparks and by Bigelow. Bigelow's Life of Fraiiklin written by himself. Biographies by Parton, McMaster, and Morse. Gallatin, Albert (1761 — 1849) • ^^f^ '^"^ Writings by Henry Adams. Garrison, William Lloyd (1805 — 1879) : by Garrison. Gerry, Elbridge (1744 — 1814) : by Austin. Grant, Ulysses Simpson (1822 — 1885) : Personal Memoirs. Greene, Nathanael (1742 — 1786) : by G. W. Greene and Johnson. Hamilton, Alexander (1757 — 1804) : Works edited by J. C. Hamilton and by Lodge. Biographies by J. C. Hamilton, Morse, Sumner, and Lodge. Henry, Patrick (1736 — 1799) : Life and Speeches by Wm. W. Henry. Biographies by Wm. Wirt and by M. C. Tyler. Iredell, James (1750 — 1799) '• by McRee. Jackson, Andrew (1767 — 1845) : by Parton and Sumner. Jay, John (1745 — 1829) : by Wm. Jay and by Pellew. Jefferson, Thomas (1743 — ^1826) : Writings, edited by H. A. Washington. A new edition by Ford is in course of publication. Biographies by Randall, Tucker, Parton, and Morse. Lincoln, Abraham (1809 — 1865): Speeches and Works by Hay and Nicolay. Biography by the same (10 vols.), also by Herndon. Madison, James (1751 — 1836): Papers. Biographies by Rives and by Gay. Mason, George (1725 — 1792) : by K. M. Rowland. Monroe, James (1758 — 1831) : by Gilman. Morgan, Daniel (1736 — 1802) : by Graham. Morris, Gouver- neur (1752 — 1816) : by Sparks and Tuckerman. Morris, Robert (1734 — 1806) : Sumner's Financier and Finances of the Revohttio7i. Otis, James (1725 — 1783) : by Tudor. Pickering, Timothy (1745 — 1829) : by Pickering and Upham. . Randolph, John (1773 — 1833) • by H. Adams. Reed, Joseph (1741 — 1785) : by Reed. Schuyler, Philip (1733 — 1804) : by Lossing. Seward, William Henry (1801 — 1872) : Works edited by Baker. Biogra- phies by Lothrop and by F. W. Seward. Sherman, William Tecumseh (1820 — 1891) : Memoirs. Sumner, Charles (181 1 — 1874) : Memoir aitd Letters by Pierce (4 vols.). Van Buren, Appendix. 341 Martin (1782 — 1862) : by Shepard. Washington, George (1732 — 1799) : Writings edited by Sparks and by Ford. Biogra- phies by John Marshall, Sparks, Irving, and Lodge. Wayne, Anthony (1741 — 1796) : by Armstrong. Webster, Daniel (1782 — 1852) : Works edited by Everett. Biographies by G. T. Curtis and Lodge. Biographies of many less important men may be found in bio- graphical collections, as Sparks's American Biography. Foreigners : Andre, John (1751 — 1780) : Biography by Sargent. For the circumstances of his death, see Dawson's Papers concern- ing the Capture of Andre and Proceedings of a Board; Arnold's Arnold; Lossing's Two Spies; Greene's Greene; Lafayette's Me- inoires ; Rush's Washington i7t Dofnestic Life. The question as to Andre's status is discussed on both sides in Sir Sherstone Baker's edition of Halleck's International Law. The best concise account, with complete bibliography, is by Winsor in his America, VL 447 and foil. Burgoyne, John (1722 — 1792) : by Fonblanque. Burke, Edmund (1729 — 1797): f^Fijri'i- (many editions). Biographies by Macknight and John Morley. Corn-wallis, Charles, Earl and Marquis (1738 — 1805) : Correspondence badly edited by Ross. Fox, Charles James (1749 — 1806) : Life and Times and Memo- rials of by Earl Russell. See also Trevelyan's Early Days of. Grenville, George (1712 — 1770) : The Grenville Papers. Kalb, John (1721 — 1780) : by Kapp. Lafayette, Marquis de (1757 — 1834): Memoires. Biography by Tower and by Tuckerman. Pitt, William, Earl of Chatham (1708 — 1788) : Correspondence. Biog- raphy by Thackeray. Pitt, William (1759 — 1806) : by Stanhope and by Rosebery. Riedesel, Baroness, Memoirs. Rochambeau, Marquis de (1725 — 1807) : Memoires. Rockinghaip, Charles Watson Wentworth, Marquis of (1730 — 1782) : Memoirs of, by Albemarle. Shelburne, William Petty, Earl of, later Marquis of Lansdowne (1737 — 1805) : Life of by Fitzmaurice. Steuben, Baron (1730 — 1794) : by Kapp. See also Campbell's Lord Chan- cellors and Lord Chief fustices. INDEX. Adams, Henry, on the limits of the Louisiana Purchase, 172 Adams, John, 43, 62; elected to Continental Congress, 68; advo- cates independence, 86; draws the Massachusetts Bill of Rights, ^5; Peace Commissioner, 103; Vice- President, 133; President, 149; defeated by Jefferson, 155; Ad- ministration of, 151-159; end of his career, 158; death of, 159 Adams, John Quincy, and the Treaty of Ghent, 194; Secretary of State, negotiates Florida Treaty, 199; chosen President, 205; Ad- ministration of, 205-207 ; defeated by Jackson, 207; Member of House of Representatives, de- fends the Right of Petition, 236; states the effects of war on Slav- ery, 261-262 Adams, Samuel, 36; at the time of the Boston Massacre, 62; estab- lishes Committees of Correspond- ence, 63; elected to the Conti- nental Congress, 68 Albany Plan of Union, 38 Alexandria Convention, 123 Alien and Sedition Acts, 152 Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, Appendix V, 125; the First Ten, 133; the Eleventh, 125; the Twelfth, 157; the Thirteenth, 278 American Ideals, 160 Andre, John, Executed as a spy, 95; Authorities on, 341 Andrew, John A., Opinions of on Brown's execution, 253 ; Gov- ernor of Massachusetts, prepares for the Civil War, 264 Annapolis Convention, 123 Antietam, Battle of, 277 Anti-Federalists, Oppose Ratifica- tion of the Constitution, 132 Anti-Masonic Party, 218 Anti-Slavery Agitation, 235 Anti-Slavery Petition presented to Congress, 143 Appeal of the Independent Demo- crats, 245 Appomattox Court House, Surren- der of Lee at, 291 Arnold, Benedict, 75 ; in Canada, 83; in the Saratoga Campaign, 92; Treason of, 95; in Virginia, 100 Articles of Confederation, 109, Ap- pendix III; Importance of, ill; Analysis of, 112; Defects of, 112, 116, 117; Convention summoned to amend, 123 Ashburton Treaty, 226 Assistance, Writs of, 42, 57 Assumption of State Debts, 141 Atlanta Campaign, 285, 286 Baltimore, Population of, in 180&, 161; in 1830, 209; in i860, 259 Bank, First United States, 145; Second, chartered, 197; Removal of the Deposits from, 220 Barbe-Marbois, Supposed Letter from, 103 342 Index. 343 Bayonne Decree, i8i Beaumarchais, Caron de, 94 Bennington, Battle of, 91 Benton, Senator from Missouri, 239 Berlin Decree, 176 Bernard, Governor of Massachusetts and Otis, 44 Border States, The, in 1861, 266 Boston Massacre, 61, 62 Boston Tea-Party, 65, 66 Boston Port Act, 66 Boston, Siege of, 71, 80; Evacuation of, 83; Population of, in 1800, 161; in 1830, 209; in i860, 259 Bragg, Confederate General Brax- ton, in Tennessee, 279; defeated at Chattanooga, 284 Brandywine, Battle of the, 90 Bright, John, on the Civil War, 270 Brock, British General, 1S9 Brooklyn, Population of, 1S60, 259 Brooks, Preston S., Assault of, on Sumner, 248 Brown, General Jacob, 190 Brown, John, in Kansas, 249; at Harper's Ferry, and death, 253 Brown, Senator from Mississippi, formulates demands of Slave- owners, 251 Buchanan, James, President, in the Crisis of 1860-61, 263, 264 Buell, General, at Shiloh, 273; in Tennessee, 279 Bull Run, First Battle of, 269; Sec- ond, 276 Bunker Hill, Battle of, 81 ; criticism on, 76, 77 Burgoyne, British General, 75 ; in the Saratoga Campaign, 91 Burnside, General, in command of Army of the Potomac, 277 Burr, Aaron, elected Vice-President, 156; kills Hamilton, 173; Con- spiracy, 173, 174; Trial of, 174 Butler, Senator from South Caro- lina, 248, 249 Calhoun, John Caldwell, 188; and Jackson, 199; Vice-President, 204; and NulHfication, 214-216; speech on compromise of 1850, 239; death of, 242 California, 236, 237 Camden, Battle of, 97 Camden, Charles Pratt, Lord, ad- vises repeal of Stamp Act, 55 C-anada, Invasions of, 83, 189 Canal building, 21 1 Canning, George, 188; and the Monroe Doctrine, 201; declines to negotiate, 206 Carolinas, Population of, 1 760, 2; Claims of, to Western Lands, 109 Catholics, The Roman, in the Colo- nies, 3, 4, 17 Cessions, The Land, 1 1 1 Chancellorsville, Battle of, 281 Charleston, The tea at, 66; Attack on, in 1776, 97; Captured by British, 97; Convention a{, i860, 254; Population of, in 1800, 161 Chase, Salmon P., 242, 265 Chase, Samuel, Impeachment of, 167 Chatham-Grafton Ministry, 56 Chattanooga, Battle of, 284 Chesapeake, Outrage on the, 179; Capture of the, 193 Chicago, Population of, in i860, 259 Chickamauga, Battle of, 283 Church of England in the Colonies, 18-20 Cincinnati, Population of, in 1830, 209; in i860, 259 Circuit Court Judges, 126 Civil Service, Jefferson and the, 166; Tenure of Office Act, 204; J. Q. Adams and the, 206; Jack- sim establishes the Spoils System, 213 Civil War, The, Causes of, 258-262; Expectations of the Southern leaders, 262; Theatre of opera- tions, 267, 271; Consideration of, 292-298 Clay, Henry, 188; Treaty of Ghent, 195; and Jackson, 199; defeated 344 Index. for the Presidency, 204; secures J. Q. Adams's election, 205; and the Bank of the United States, 220; and Tyler, 226; again de- feated for the Presidency, 229, 230; Compromise of 1850, 237- 241 ; Death, 242 Clinton, Sir Henry, 75; captures Charleston, 97 Cochrane, British Admiral, 190 Coinage, The, 120 Cold Harbor, Battle of, 289 Colonial governments, 26-35 Colonial Policy of Great Britain, 39-41 Colonies, Prosperity of the, 73 Commissioners of the Customs at Boston, 61 Committees of Correspondence, 63, 64, 66 Compromises, The, of the Consti- tution, 130; as to Missouri, 202; of 1833, 219; of 1850, 239 Concord, Battle of, 70 Confederation, Articles of. See Articles. Confederation, Government of, in; Finances of, 116; Foreign affairs, 117; Causes of the Downfall of, 121; Dissolution of, 135 Congress, The Stamp Act, 53; First Continental, 68; Voting in, 107; The Second Continental, 82 ; of the Confederation, 112; of the United States, 127 Constitution, The, and the Guerri- ere, 191 Constitution of the United States, Appendix IV; Formation of, 122- 131 Continental Line, The Soldiers of the, 115 Connecticut, Population of, 1760, 2; 1775, 73; Claims to Western Lands, 109 Cornwallis, Lord, 76; in the South, 97; fortifies Yorktown, 1 00; in Virginia, 99-101 ; Capture of, due to French assistance, 80 Cowpens, Battle of the, 98 Crawford, William H., 204 Criminals, Deportation of English, 15 Crown, Relations of the, to Colo- nists, 28 Davie, WilHam R., 154 Davis, Jefferson, Senator from Mis- sissippi, 237; Formulates slave- owners' demands, 251; President of the Confederacy, 295 Deane, Silas, 94 Dearborn, Secretary of War, 166 Declaration of Independence, Ap- pendix II; Adoption of the, 85; Sir Henry Maine's criticism on, 87 Declaratory Act, The, 55 D'Estaing, French Admiral, 100 De Grasse and the Capture of Corn- wallis, lOI Democratic Party, Origin of the, 213; Disruption of, 254 Deposits of Public Money with the States, 222 Dickinson, John, 86 Dodge, Col., on the Civil War, 298 Domain, The National, 109, 1 13 Donelson, Capture of Fort, 271 Douglas, Stephen A., and the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, 243-246; Debate with Lincoln, 250; De- clares for the Union, 266 Dred Scott Decision, 251 Dutch Immigration, 3 Dwight, President of Yale College, on the Jeffersonian Republicans, 166 East Florida, Jackson's Invasion of, 199 Education in the Colonies, 22-24 Elections, Presidential, of 1788, 133; of 1792, 147; of 1796, 149; of 1800, 155; of 1824, 204; of 1828, 207; of 1840,225; of 1844,229; of 1852, 242; of i860, 254; of 1864, 291 Index. 345 Ellsworth, Oliver, Chief Justice of the United States, 154; Com- missioner to France, 154; Re- signs, 158 Emancipation Proclamation, 277 Embargo, The, 180-183 "Era of Good Feeling," 197 Ericsson, John, 275 Erie Canal, 211 Erskine, British Minister, 184 Essex, Case of the, 175 Excise, The, 144 Farragut, Admiral, takes New Or- leans, 272 Federal Convention, Summoned, 123; Powers of, 131 ; Members of, 124; Madison's Notes of De- bates of, 125 Federal Courts, 126, 139 Federalists, The, favour adoption of Constitution, 132 Federalist Party, Cause of Defeat of, 160 Fillmore, INIillard, President, 240 ; Defeated for re-nomination, 242 Florida Treaty, 200 Feeder alist. The, 132 Fox, Charles James, Dislikes Shel- burne, 102 France, Relations of United States with, in 1776-78, 94; in 1794- 1800, 151-155; in 1806-10,176- 185; in 1829-35, 221 Franklin, Benjamin, 21 ; Albany Plan of Union, 39; on the Stamp Act, 54; in Continental Congress, 86; in France, 94; Commissioner to negotiate Treaty of 1783, 102; in Federal Convention, 124; Pres- ident of Abolition Society, 143 Fredericksburg, Battle of, 277 Freeman's Farm, Battle of, 93 Free-Willers, 16 French Alliance, The, 94; Results of, 100 French Revolution, Influence of, on American Politics, 147 French spoliation claims, 155 Fugitive Slave Act, 241 Gage, General, his policy, 1774-75, 69, 76; at Bunker Hill, 81 Gallatin, Albert, 5; opposes Alien Act, 153; Secretary of the Treas- ury, 166; and the Smiths, 186; on^ of the negotiators of the Treaty of Ghent, 194; Minister to England, 206 Garrison, William Lloyd, 235, 236, 256 Gaspee, Destruction of the, 64 Gaspee Commission of Inquiry, 64 Gates, General Horatio, 75 ; at Sara- toga, 93; at Camden, 97 Genet, French Minister, 147 Georgia, Population of, 3; claims to Western Lands, 109 George III, and the Tea Duty, 60 Germaine, Lord George, 76 German Immigrants, 2, 3 Germantown, Battle of, 91 Gerry, Elbridge, Commissioner to France, 151 ; on Nationality, 259 Gerrymander, The, 186 Gettysburg, Battle of, 282 Ghent, Treaty of, 194 Gladstone, W. E., on the Civil War, 270; on the Constitution, 125 Goodrich, Removal of, 166 Governments, Colonial, 26-34 Grant, Ulysses S., Early career, 267; captures Forts Henry and Donel- son, 271 ; at Shiloh, 273; captures Vicksburg, 280; at Chattanooga, 284; in command of all the Union armies, 285; in the Wilderness Campaign, 289; captures Lee's Army, 292 Great Britain, Treaty of 1783 with, 104; Relations with, 1783-89, 117, 118; Jay's Treaty with, 148; Relations with, 1 783-1 804, 174; 1806-1812, i77-i8'i, 184-188; War of 1812, 188-196; Treaties of 1815 and 1818 with, 198; 1829-36, 206, 221; Ashburton Treaty, 226; Oregon Treaty, 232- 346 Index. 234; attitude during the Civil War, 269 Greene, General Nathanael, 74; Presides at Andre Trial, 96; in the South, 98 Grenville, George, 35; and the Stamp Act, 48, 55 Guerj'ih'e and Constitution, 191 Guadalupe Hidalgo, Treaty of, 231 Guilford Court House, Battle of, 99 Halifax Plan of Union, 39 Halleck, General, 273; his Inter- national Laiu, 96 Hamilton, Alexander, Principal au- thor of the Fcederalist, 132; Intrigues against John Adams, 133, 150, 155; Secretary of the Treasury, 137; Political Opinions, 137, 138; Restores credit, 140- 143; the Bank of the United States, 145; Opposed to French ideas, 147; in command of the Army, 152; Letter to Dayton, 154; Death, 173 Hancock, John, 36 Harrison, William Henry, at Tippe- canoe, 188; Elected President, 225; Death, 225 Hartford Convention, 195 Hayne on Nullification, 215 Helper's Impending Crisis, 252 Henry, Patrick, The Parson's Cause, 46; Resolutions condemning the Stamp Act, 50 ; Committees of Correspondence, 64; a National- ist, 107; Opposes ratification of Constitution, 132; appointed Commissioner to France, 154 Hessians, 87 Hood, Confederate General, 286, 288 Hooker, General Joseph, in com- mand of Army of Potomac, 277; at Chancellorsville, 281 ; Lookout Mountain, 284 Hooker, Richard, his Ecclesiastical Polity, Influence of, 87 Hopkins, Stephen, 64 Houston, Samuel, 229 Howe, British General, 75, 76; at Bunker Hill, 81 ; in Campaign of 1776, 89 Huguenots in the Colonies, 2, 3 Hutchinson, Thomas, Writs of As- sistance, 42; the Boston Mas- sacre, 62; reopens the contest, 63 Impeachment of Justices of the Supreme Court, 126 Impressment controversy, 178 Independence, Declaration of, 86; Appendix II; Growth of the idea of, 83 Indented Servants, 15 Inter-colonial communication, 24 Inter-state conflicts, 1783-88, 121 Jackson, Andrew, defends New Orleans, 191; Invades Florida, 199; Defeated for the Presi- dency, 205; Elected President, 207, 208; and NuUification, 216- 219; Re-elected President, 218; Removal of the Deposits, 220; Censured by the Senate, 221; The Specie Circular, 223; and the Annexation of Texas, 229 Jackson, British Minister to the United States, 184 Jackson, Confederate General, in the Shenandoah Valley, 274; killed at Chancellorsville, 282; as a soldier, 297 Jay, John, one of the negotiators of the Treaty of 1783, 103; writes part of the Federalist, 132; Chief Justice, 136; Negotiates Treaty of 1794, 148 Jefferson, Thomas, his Summary View, 27, 67; Committees of Correspondence, 64; in Second Continental Congress, 82; the Virginia Constitution, 85 ; Writes Declaration of Independence, 86; Report on a Monetary System, 120; and Alexandria Convention, 123; Minister to France, 136; Index. 347 Secretary of State and political opinions, 136, 138; Aids Hamil- ton, 143; Opposes the establish- ment of the Bank, 145; as a Party Leader, 146; Sympathy with the French, 147; and the Kentucky Resolutions, 153; Elected President, 156; Favours Emancipation of the Slaves, 163; Administrations of, 165-183; Inaugural Address, 165; and the Civil Service, 166-16S; and the Louisiana Purchase, 169-172; his Embargo Policy, 180-182 Jews, in the Colonies, 2, 4 Johnston, Albert S., Confederate General, 273, 298 Johnston, J. E., Confederate Gen- eral, 274, 298; in Vicksburg Campaign, 281 ; opposes Sher- man, 285-288 Judiciary Act of 1801, 157 Justices of the Supreme Court, 126 Kansas, The Struggle for, 247-250 Kansas-Nebraska Bill, 243-246 Kentucky, Settlers in, 118; a Slave State, 144 Kentucky Resolutions, The, 153 King's Mountain, Battle of, 98 Know -Nothing Party, 247 Lafayette, Marquis de, 75; in Vir- ginia, 100 Land Claims and Cessions, 109-111 Land System, 16 Lawrence, Abbot, 247 Lecompton Convention, 249 Lee, Charles, 75; at Monmouth, 95 Lee, Richard Henry, moves Reso- lution for Independence, 85 ; Opposes Ratification of the Con- stitution, 132 Lee, R. E., Confederate General, 276; at Chancellorsville, 281, 282; the Wilderness Campaign, 2S9; Surrenders, 292; as a soldier, 297 Legal Profession, Rise of the, 21 Le op a 7- d 2inA Chesapeake, 179 Lexington, Skirmish at, 70 Liberty, Seizure of the Sloop, 61 Lincoln, Levi, Attorney-General, 166 Lincoln, Abraham, attacks Kansas- Nebraska Act, 246; Debate with Douglas, 250; on John Brown's Raid, 253; Elected President, 256; his Position in 1861, 261- 265; First Inaugural Address, 264; Emancipation Proclamation, 277; Re-elected President, 291 ; Murdered, 292 Little Belt, The, and the President^ 187 Liverpool, Lord, on the Americans, 189 Livingston, Minister to France, ne- gotiates Louisiana Treaty, 171 Local government in the Colonies, 37.38 Locke, John, Influence of his Essay on Government, 45, 87 Lodge, H. C, on the composition of the population, i; on Webster's Theory of Nationality, 259 Longfellow, H. W., on Brown's Execution, 253 Louisiana Purchase, The, 169-172 Loyalists, The, 92, 97; Treaty of 1783, as to, 104, 117 Lundy's Lane, Battle of, 190 Lyon, General, 267 McClellan, General G. B., 269; in the Peninsular Campaign, 274- 276; at Antietam, 277; Defeated for the Presidency, 291 McDonough, Commodore, 190 McDowell, General, 269 Macon's Bill, No. 2, 185 Madison, James, and the Alexandria Convention, 123; "Notes of the Debates " of the Federal Con- vention, 125; one of the authors of the Fa:deralist, 132; in House of Representatives, 136-141; and 348 Index. a National Bank, 146; author of the Virginia Resolutions, 153; Secretary of State, 166; Adminis- trations of, 184-197 Maine, Sir Henry, on American Political Ideas, 87 Manufacturing, Restrictions on Co- lonial, 32 Marbois, Barbe-, Letter from, 103 "March to the Sea," The, 287, 288 Marshall, John, Commissioner to France, 151; Secretary of State, 154; Chief Justice, 158, 167, 174 Maryland, Roman Catholics in, 17; Education in, 23; and the Articles of Confederation, ill; and Vir- ginia, 122 Mason and Dixon's Line, 4, 162 Mason, George, 59; and the Vir- ginia Bill of Rights, 84 Massachusetts, Population of, 1760, 2; in 1775, 36; in 1810, 195; Government of, 36; Circular Letter, The, 58; Charter of, sus- pended, 66; Provincial Congress, 69; Claim to Western Lands, 109; and the War of 1812, 195 Massacre, The Boston, 61 Meade, General G. G., 282 Medical Profession, Rise of the, 21 Mexican War, The, 230-232 Middle States, Population of, in 1800, 162 Midnight Appointments, The, 158 Milan Decree, 177 Mill Spring, Battle of, 271 Mississippi, Navigation of the, 1 18 Missouri Compromises, The, 202, 228, 230, 235; Repeal of, 244; Constitutionality of, 251 Monitor and Merrimac, 274 Monmouth, Battle of, 95 Monroe, James, Minister to France, 151 : and the Louisiana Treaty, 171; Secretary of State, 186; Administrations of, 197-204 Monroe Doctrine, The, 200 Montesquieu, Influence of, on Amer- ica, 87 Montgomery, General, 83 Morgan, General Daniel, 77; in the Saratoga Campaign, 93; at the Covv^pens, 98 Morris, Gouverneur, Plan for a Monetary System, 1 20; in the Constitutional Convention, 125 Murfreesboro', Battle of, 279 Napoleon, and the Treaty of 1800, 155; and Louisiana, 170, 1 71; and the Neutrals, 176-185 National Capital, Controversy as to site of, 142 National Debt, in 1783, 116; in 1789, 140; Hamilton's Policy, 141 ; in 1800, 168; Jefferson and Gallatin's Policy, 168; Paid off in 1835, 222 National Domain, Origin of the, 109; Administration of the, 113 Naturalization, before 1775, 20 Navigation Acts, 31 ; Evasions of the, 41 ; Enforcement of the, 48 Navy, Jefferson's jealousy of the, 168 Neutrality, Proclamation of 1794, 147 Newburg Addresses, 116 New England, Population of, in 1760, I; in 1800, 162; Education in, 23; Town system of, 37; Di- minished Importance in 1830, 211 New Hampshire, First Constitution of, 84 New Jersey, Education iri, 23; and New York, 121; Slavery in, 163 New Orleans, Battle of, 1815, 191; Population of, in 1830, 209; in i860, 258; Captured, 1862, 272 New York, Colony and State of, Population, 1760, 3; Roman Catholics in, 17; Education in, 23 ; Claims to Western Lands, no; and New Jersey, 121 New York, City of. Population in Index. 349 1800,161; in 1830,209; in i860, 259 Non-Importation Agreements, 59 Non-Importation Act of 1804, 175 North, Lord, Opposes Repeal of Tea Duty, 60; Conciliatory Proposals of, 95 North Carolina, Education in, 24; Cedes Western Lands, 144 North, The, Condition of, i860, 259 Nullification, Theory of, 153; Epi- sode, 214, 217-219 Ohio Valley, Settlements in, 1800, 163 Olive Branch Petition, 82 Orders in Council, 1807, 177 Ordinance of 1784, 113; of 1787, 113-115 Oregon Treaty, 232-234 Oriskany, Battle of, 92 Otis, James, and Writs of Assist- ance, 42; Political Essays, 43-45; and the Stamp Act Congress, 52 Paine, Thomas, his Common Sense, 85 Pakenham, British General, 191 Panama Congress, 206 Paper Money, 1784-87, 119 Parliament of Great Britain and the Colonies, 28, 33 Particularism, Growth of, 107 Pemberton, Confederate General, 280, 281 Peninsular Campaign, 274-276 Pennsylvania, Population of, in 1760, 3; in 1775, 73; in 1800, 162; Roman Catholics in, 17; Education in, 23 Perry, Commodore, 189 Perryville, Battle of, 279 Philadelphia, Tea at, 66; Captured by British, 90; Population in 1800, 161; in 1830,209; in i860, 259 Phillips, Wendell, 236, 256 Pickett, Confederate General, 283 Pierce, Franklin, President, 243 Pinckney, General, Commissioner to P'rance, 151 Pitt, William, Earl of Chatham, and the Stamp Act, 55 ; Ministry of, Pitt, William, Enforces " Rule of War of 1756," 175 Plans of Union, 38 Political Ideas, American, 43-46 Political Parties, 1787-88, 132; For- mation of, 1790-92, 146, 149 Polk, J. K., President, 229, 230; Administration of, 230-234 Polly, The, Case of, 174 Pontiac, Conspiracy of, 47 Pope, General, 271, 273; in Vir- ginia, 276 Population of United States, Statis- tics and Distribution of, in 1760, 1-4; in 1775, 72; in 1800, 161 ; in 1830, 208; in 1840, 209; in i860, 263 Post Office, The Colonial, 25 Potomac, Navigation of the, 123 Prescott, Colonel, 73, 81 President of the United States, Tenure of Office, 127; Powers of, 129; Mode of Election of, I33> 157; Salary of, 139; Title of, 140 President, The, and Little Belt, 187 Prevost, British General, 190 Princeton, Battle of, 90 Privateers, American, in Revolu- tionary War, 106; in War of 1812, 193 Privy Council and the Colonies, 33, 35 Proclamation of 1763, 27, 104, no Protestant Dissenters in the Colo- nies, 18 Province, a Royal, Government of, 34 Quebec Act, 66 Railways, 212 Rambouillet Decree, 181 Rawdon, Lord, 97 350 Index. Redemptioners, 1 5 Religion, in the Colonies, 16 Representative Government, 29 Representatives, Members of the House of. Tenure of Office, 127; Salary of, 140 Republican Party, formed by Jeffer- son, 149; The later, 255; Posi- tion of, as to Slavery, 256 Revolution, Causes of, 29-31 Revolutionary Governments, 84 Revolutionary War, Theatre of, 77; British Strategy in, 76, 78; Char- acter of, 79; French Aid, 79; Campaigns of, 89-102; Effects of, 105 Rhodes, James Ford, on the Kansas- Nebraska Act, 245; on Helper's Book, 252 Rhode Island, Population, 2; Ro- man Catholics in, 17; Education in, 23; Government of, 35, 84; Paper Money in, 119 Riedesel, Baroness, \itx Journal, 89 Right of Deposit, 171 Rittenhouse, David, 21 Rochambeau, Marquis de, 100 Rockingham Ministries, The First, 54; The Second, 102 Rodney, Admiral, on Clinton, 76; does not follow De Grasse, loi Roman Catholics in the Colonies, 17 Rosecrans, General, 279, 283 Ross, British General, 190 Russia and the War of 1812, 194 St. Leger's Campaign, 92 St. Louis, Population in i860, 259 Salaries of the principal Federal Officers, 139, 140 Saratoga, Convention of, 93 Scotch-Irish Immigrants, 2 Scots, in the Colonies, 2, 3 Scott, Sir William, 174, 175 Scott, General Winfield, in War of 181 2, 190; in Mexican War, 231 ; Defeated for the Presidency, 243 Sedition Act, 152 Senators, United States, 127, 140 Servants in the Colonies, 15 Seward, William H., 219, 237; on the Compromise of 1850, 240, 242; on Kansas-Nebraska Act, 244; on Slavery, 251; Secretary of State, 265; and the Trent Case, 270 Shannon, The, captures the Chesa- peake, 193 Shays's Rebellion, 122 Shelburne,.in the Second Rocking- ham Ministry, 102; begins Nego- tiations for Peace, 102; Prime Minister, 102 Sheridan, General, at Murfreesboro', 279; at Chattanooga, 284; in the Shenandoah Valley, 290; in the last Campaign, 291 Sherman, General, in the Vicksburg Campaign, 280, 281 ; at Chatta- nooga, 284; in the Atlanta Cam- paign, 285, 286; the "March to the Sea," 287, 288 Shiloh, Battle of, 272 Shirley, Governor of Massachusetts, 42 Slaves, in the Colonies, 12-14, 72j 73; in 1800, 162; in 1830, 209; in i860, 263; Number of Slave- holders in i860, 263; Emancipa- tion of, in the North, 113, 114, 163; First Debates in Congress as to, 143, 144; Extension of Slave Territory, 228 and foil.; Emanci- pation of, in the United States, 277, 278 Smith, Goldwin, on the Civil War, 270 Smith, Robert, in Madison's Cabi- net, 186 South, The, Population in 1800, 162; Condition of, in i860, 258 South Carolina, Population of, in 1775' 73! Education in, 24; Local Government in, 38; Nulli- fication in, 217; Secession of, 256 Spain, Relations with, 1783-89, Index. 351 118; cedes Louisiana to France, 170; withdraws Right of Deposit, 171 ; cedes Florida, 199, 200 Specie Circular, The, 223 Spoils system, 1 66-1 68, 204, 213 Spottsylvania, Battle of, 289 " Squatter Sovereignty," 245 Stamp Act, Reasons for, 47, 49; in the Colonies, 50-54; Repealed, 55 Stamp Act Congress, 52, 53 Stanton, Secretary of War, 265 State Constitutions, Early, 84, 108 "States-Rights," 214 Steamboats, 212 Stephen, Sir James, 175 Steuben, Baron, 75 Stone River, Battle of, 279 Stony Point, Assault on, 95 Stowe, Mrs., Uncle Toni's Cabin, 242 Sumner, Charles, on Fugitive Slave Act, 241 ; Senator from Massa- chusetts, 242; on the Kansas- Nebraska Act, 244; The Crime against Kansas, 248; Assault on, 248 Sumter, Fort, Attack on, 265 Supreme Court of the United States, 126, 127, 139 Talleyrand and the "X Y Z Affair," 151 ; and Louisiana, 170 Taney, Roger B., Secretary of the Treasury, removes Deposits, 220; gives the Decision in the Dred Scott Case, 251 • Tariff Acts, of 1 790, 1 39 ; of Abom- inations, 213; of 1833, 219; of 1842, 226 Tarleton, British General, 77, 97; at the Covi'pens, 98 Taylor, Zachary, in the Mexican War, 230, 231; President, 237; Death, 240 Tea Duty, 65 Tecumseh, 187 Tennessee, Settlers in, 118 Territorial Acquisitions, The Louisi- ana Purchase, 169; Florida, 199; Texas, 229; Mexican Cessions, 232; Oregon, 232-234 Texas, 229 Thomas, General G. H., at Battle of Mill Spring, 271 ; at Murfrees- boro', 279; at Chickamauga, 283; at Chattanooga, 284; wins Battle of Nashville, 287 Tippecanoe, Battle of, 187 Townshend Acts, 56 Treaties, Alliance with France, 94; of Paris, 104; Jay's Treaty, 148; of 1800 with France, 155; Louisi- ana Purchase, 171 ; of Ghent, 194; of 1 81 8 with Great Britain, 198; Ashburton Treaty, 226; of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 231 ; Oregon, 232 Trent Case, The, 269 Trenton, Battle of, 90 Trevett vs. Weeden, Case of, 119 Tripolitan War, 169 Turner, Nat, Insurrection, 236 Tyler, John, Vice-President, 225; President, 226; Administration of, 226-230 Union, Form of, under Articles of Confederation, in; Plans of, 38 Union States, Population of the, 263 United States, Boundaries of, in 1783, 104; Disputes as to, 118, 198, 199, 226, 229, 233; Stability of Government of, under the Con- stitution, 127, 128; Area of, 1783 and 1800, i6i ; in 1830, 209. See also Population Valley Forge, 91 Van Buren, Martin, 207; Secretary of State, 221; Vice-President, 218; President, 223; Adminis- tration of, 223-225; Defeated for re-election, 225 ; Declines over- tures of Texas, 229 Vans Murray, Commissioner to France, 154 352 Index. Veto Power, Exercised by King of Great Britain, 2,7, Vicksburg Campaign, 280, 281 Virginia, Population of, in 1760, i, 2; in 1775, 72; in 1800, 162; Social Conditions in, lO; Religion in, 17, 18; Education in, 23; Local Government in, 38; First Constitution of, 84; Topography of, 77, 267; Loss of Prestige of, 210; Claims to Western Lands, 109, iio; in the War of 1812, 19s Virginia Resolves of 1769, 59 and Appendix I Virginia Resolutions of 1798, 153 Virtual Representation, 30 Volunteers, The Northern, 266 Wade, B. F., 242 Walpole, Sir Robert, and the Colo- nies, 40 War of 1812, 188-196 Washington City, Burning of, 190 Washington, George, 59, 73, 74; Commander-in-Chief, 82 ; and Independence, 83; Campaign of 1776,89; at Trenton and Prince- ton, 90; Campaign of 1777, 90; at Monmouth, 95 ; at Yorktown, 100; The Newburgh Addresses, 115; in the Federal Convention, 124; President, 134; Adminis- trations of, 1 35- 1 50; Farewell Address, 150; Appointed Gen- eral, 1798, 152; Favours Eman- cipation of Slaves, 163 Wasp and Frolic, 192 Wayne, General Anthony, 74; at Stony Point, 95 Webster, Daniel, and Hayne, 215; Secretary of State, negotiates Ashburton Treaty, 226; "Sev- enth of March Speech," 240; Death, 242 West Florida, Seizure of, 185 Wilderness Campaign, 289-290 Wilmot Proviso, 238, 240 Writs of Assistance, 42, 57 Yorktown, Capture of, 100; Respon- sibility for British Disaster, 76 "XYZ Affair," 151 The Cambridge Historical Series. General Editor : G. W. PROTHERO, Litt.D., Fellow of King's College, Cambridge ; Professor of History in the University of Edinburgh. The Revolutionary and Napoleonic Era, 1789-1815. By J. H. Rose, M.A., Christ's College. Crown 8vo. With Maps and Plans. Second Edition. ^1.25. Outlines of English Industrial History. By W. Cunningham, D.D., Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, and E. A. McArthur, Lecturer at Girton College. Crown 8vo. ^1.50. The Australasian Colonies, from their foundation to the year 1893, by E. JENKS, M.A., Fellow of King's College, Cambridge, and Professor of Law in University College, Liverpool ; late Dean of the Faculty of Law in Melbourne University. Crown 8vo. With Maps. ^1.60. The Europeans in India, from the Invasion of Alexander to the Present Time. By H. MORSE STEPHENS, M.A., Balliol College, Oxford ; Professor of History in Cornell University. [/« the Press. The United States of America, 1765-1865. By Edward Chan- NING, Professor of History in Harvard University, The Foundation of the German Empire, 1815-1871. By J. W. Headlam, M.A., Fellow of King's College, Cambridge. [/« Preparation. Ireland ; to the year 1868. By his Honour Judge O'Connor Morris. [In Preparatmi. Other volumes will he announced shortly. MACMILLAN & CO., 66 FIFTH AVENUE, NE^V YORK. Cambridge Historical Series. THE REVOLUTIONARY AND NAPOLEONIC ERA. 1789-1815. J. H. ROSE, M.A., Late Scholar of Christ's College, Cambridge; University Extensioii Lecturer in Modern History. Second Edition. Revised and Corrected, with Maps and Plans. Crown 8vo. Cloth. $1.25. PRESS COMMENTS. " We are acquainted with no historical work which more clearly, succinctly, and suggestively deals with a peculiarly complex story." — The Dublin Dally Express. " It is not too much to say that Mr. Rose's treatment of this difficult and complicated subject shows a grasp of essentials and a soundness of judgment that are decidedly uncommon. Nor is it easy to overpraise the nicety of judg- ment in the selection of authorities which is a remarkable feature of Mr. Rose's book." — Saturday Review. " We strongly recommend the book, not merely to the student, but to more advanced readers." — Bookman. " In dealing with this vast subject Mr. Rose has read widely, and has used his reading well ; his information is considerable; his writing is accurate and thoughtful; and his volume contains a trustworthy summary of the history of the times based on the most recent knowledge at our command. . . . Mr. Rose's narrative is of great interest, and it gains in space and freedom as it proceeds." — Guardian. " Mr. J. H. Rose's volume in the new Cambridge Historical Series is quite a model in its way. His subject is the European Revolution caused by the French Revolution or coincident with it, and liis treatment is at once interesting in its narrative of events and helpful in its generalizations from the compara- tively unfamiliar point of view. It is a profound relief after Thiers, Dumas, and Masson to take up his book." — Literary World. MACMILLAN & CO., 66 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK. Cambridge Historical Series. OUTLINES OF ENGLISH INDUSTRIAL HISTORY. BY W- Cunningham, D.D., t"ellow and Lecturer of Trinity College, Cambridge, and Tooke Professor of Economic Science in King's College, London, AND Ellen A. McArthur, Lecturer of Girton College, Cambridge, and Lecturer to the Cambridge Local Lectures Syndicate. lamo. Cloth. $1.50. PRESS COMIVIENTS. "The volume is characterized by clear, comprehensive statements, and is permeated by the philosophical spirit. A chronological table and full index greatly enhance its value." — Boston Daily Advertiser. " A scholarly survey of the industrial history of England." — Philadelphia Press. " The story is a most interesting one, and is told with a comprehensiveness and a fulness that will make the volume indispensable to the student of politi- cal or social economy." — Boston Evetiing Transcript^ " It is a compact book, but the fruits of a great deal of research are crowded into it, and it is a treasury of information and a clear and readable narrative. We commend it heartily." — Cotigregatiottalist. " A very lucid and instructive summary of economical history." — London Times. "As an introduction to a vast subject of the highest possible importance, which is too often neglected by historians, this little work, which is a remarkable specimen in skilful condensation, will be helpful to many." — London Daily A^ews. MACMILLAN & CO., 66 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK. "^ '"■1 C " Cambridge Historical Series. , THE HISTORY OF THE AUSTRALASIAN COLONIES (From their Foundation to the Year 1893.) BY Edward Jenks, M.A., Fellow of King's College, Cambridge, and Professor of Law in University College, Liverpool ; late Dean of the Faculty of Law in Melbourne University. WITH MAPS. Crown 8vo. Cloth. $1.60. PRESS COMMENTS. " American ignorance of Australasian history has hithertofore been pardon- able in a measure, since there have been written very few comprehensive and scholarly works on the subject, which have been at the same time sufficiently condensed for popular use. Professor Jenks has made use of original sources of information and has succeeded in telling the whole story in a terse and sympathetic manner. His single volume seems to contain practically all the facts of Australian colonial development that the average reader is interested in knowing." — Review of Reviews. " A systematic and well-condensed chapter of Great Britain's more recent colonial progress, which is presented with a thorough knowledge of the sub- ject." — Independent. " Professor Jenks writes with an evidently intimate knowledge of his sub- ject. His style is graceful and easy, and every student of history will feel that he has done an admirable work in presenting his story in its present attractive form. The maps accompanying the text render the book additionally valuable. Professor Jenks's book ought to be in all our public libraries, and no student of current affairs can afford to miss reading it." — Providence Journal. MACMILLAN & CO., 66 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK.