In the series of events which led to the surrender of Cornwallis, the battle of King's Mountain played a part similar to that played by the battle of Bennington in the series of events which led to the surrender of Burgoyne. It was the enemy's first serious disaster, and its immediate result was to check his progress until the Americans could muster strength enough to overthrow him. The events, however, were much more complicated in Cornwallis's case, and took much longer to unfold themselves. Burgoyne surrendered within nine anxious weeks after Bennington; Cornwallis maintained himself, sometimes with fair hopes of final victory, for a whole year after King's Mountain.
The Southern Campaign
Greene takes command in South Carolina, Dec. 2, 1780.
As soon as he heard the news of the disaster he fell back to Winnsborough, in South Carolina, and called for reinforcements. While they were arriving, the American army, recruited and reorganizedsince its crushing defeat at Camden, advanced into Mecklenburg county. Gates was superseded by Greene, who arrived upon the scene on the 2d of December. Under Greene were three Virginians of remarkable ability,—Daniel Morgan; William Washington, who was a distant cousin of the commander-in-chief; and Henry Lee, familiarly known as "Light-horse Harry," father of the great general, Robert Edward Lee. The little army numbered only 2000 men, but a considerable part of them were disciplined veterans fully a match for the British infantry.
In order to raise troops in Virginia to increase this little force, Steuben was sent down to that state. In order to interfere with such recruiting, and to make diversions in aid of Cornwallis, detachments from the British army were also sent by sea from New York to Virginia. The first of these detachments, under General Leslie, had been obliged to keep on to South Carolina, to make good the loss inflicted upon Cornwallis at King's Mountain. To replace Leslie in Virginia, the traitor Arnold was sent down from New York. The presence of these subsidiary forces in Virginia was soon to influence in a decisive way the course of events.
Battle of the Cowpens, Jan. 17, 1781.
Greene, on reaching South Carolina, acted with boldness and originality. He divided his little army into two bodies, one of which coöperatedwith Marion's partisans in the northeastern part of the state, and threatened Cornwallis's communications with the coast. The other body he sent under Morgan to the southwestward, to threaten the inland posts and their garrisons. Thus worried on both flanks, Cornwallis presently divided his own force, sending Tarleton with 1100 men, to dispose of Morgan. Tarleton came up with Morgan on the 17th of January, 1781, at a grazing-ground known as the Cowpens, not far from King's Mountain. The battle which ensued was well fought, and on Morgan's part it was a wonderful piece of tactics. With only 900 men in open field he surrounded and nearly annihilated a superior force. The British lost 230 in killed and wounded, 600 prisoners, and all their guns. Tarleton escaped with 270 men. The Americans lost 12 killed and 61 wounded.
Battle of Guilford, March 15, 1781.
The two battles, King's Mountain and the Cowpens, deprived Cornwallis of nearly all his light-armed troops, and he was just entering upon a game where swiftness was especially required. It was his object to intercept Morgan and defeat him before he could effect a junction with the other part of the American army. It was Greene's object to march the two parts of his army in converging directions northward across North Carolina and unite them in spite of Cornwallis. By moving in this direction Greene was always gettingnearer to his reinforcements from Virginia, while Cornwallis was always getting further from his supports in South Carolina. It was brilliant strategy on Greene's part, and entirely successful. Cornwallis had to throw away a great deal of his baggage and otherwise weaken himself, but in spite of all he could do, he was outmarched. The two wings of the American army came together and were joined by the reinforcements; so that at Guilford Court House, on the 15th of March, Cornwallis found himself obliged to fight against heavy odds, two hundred miles from the coast and almost as far from the nearest point in South Carolina at which he could get support.
The battle of Guilford was admirably managed by both commanders and stubbornly fought by the troops. At nightfall the British held the field, with the loss of nearly one third of their number, and the Americans were repulsed. But Cornwallis could not stay in such a place, and could not afford to risk another battle. There was nothing for him to do but retreat to Wilmington, the nearest point on the coast. There he stopped and pondered.
Cornwallis retreats into Virginia.
His own force was sadly depleted, but he knew that Arnold in Virginia was being heavily reinforced from New York. The only safe course seemed to march northward and join in the operations in Virginia; thenafterwards to return southward. This course Cornwallis pursued, arriving at Petersburg and taking command of the troops there on the 20th of May.
Greene takes Camden, May 10, 1781.
Battle of Eutaw Springs, Sept. 8, 1781.
Meanwhile Greene, after pursuing Cornwallis for about fifty miles from Guilford, faced about and marched with all speed upon Camden, a hundred and sixty miles distant. Whatever his adversary might do, he was now going to seize the great prize of the campaign, and break the enemy's hold upon South Carolina. Lord Rawdon held Camden. Greene stopped at Hobkirk's Hill, two miles to the north, and sent Marion and Lee to take Fort Watson, and thus cut the enemy's communications with the coast. On April 23 Fort Watson surrendered; on the 25th Rawdon defeated Greene at Hobkirk's Hill, but as his communications were cut, the victory did him no good. He was obliged to retreat toward the coast, and Greene took Camden on the 10th of May. Having thus obtained the commanding point, Greene went on until he had reduced every one of the inland posts. At last on the 8th of September he fought an obstinate battle at Eutaw Springs, in which both sides claimed the victory. The facts were that he drove the British from their first position, but they rallied upon a second position from which he failed to drive them. Here, however, as always afterone of Greene's battles, it was the enemy who retreated and he who pursued. His strategy never failed. After Eutaw Springs the British remained shut up in Charleston under cover of their ships, and the American government was reëstablished over South Carolina. Among all the campaigns in history that have been conducted with small armies, there have been few, if any, more brilliant than Greene's.
Lafayette and Cornwallis in Virginia, May-Sept., 1781.
There was something especially piquant in the way in which after Guilford he left Cornwallis to himself. It reminds one of a chess-player who first gets the queen off the board, where she can do no harm, and then wins the game against the smaller pieces. As for Cornwallis, when he reached Petersburg, May 20, he found himself at the head of 5000 men. Arnold had just been recalled to New York, and Lafayette, who had been sent down to oppose him, was at Richmond with 3000 men. A campaign of nine weeks ensued, in the first part of which Cornwallis tried to catch Lafayette and bring him to battle. The general movement was from Richmond up to Fredericksburg, then over toward Charlottesville, then back to the James river, then down the north bank of the river. But during the last part the tables were turned, and it was Lafayette, reinforced by Wayne and Steuben, that pursued Cornwallis on his retreat to the coast. At the end of July the British generalreached Yorktown, where he was reinforced and waited with 7000 men.
Washington's masterly movement.
We may now change our simile, and liken Cornwallis to a ball between two bats. The first bat, which had knocked him up into Virginia, was Greene; the second, which sent him quite out of the game, was Washington. The remarkable movement which the latter general now proceeded to execute would have been impossible without French coöperation. A French fleet of overwhelming power, under the Count de Grasse, was approaching Chesapeake bay. Washington, in readiness for it, had first moved Rochambeau's army from Rhode Island across Connecticut to the Hudson river. Then, as soon as all the elements of the situation were disclosed, he left part of his force in position on the Hudson, and in a superb march led the rest down to Virginia. Sir Henry Clinton at New York was completely hoodwinked. He feared that the real aim of the French fleet was New York, in which case it would be natural that an American land-force should meet it at Staten island. Now a glance at the map of New Jersey will show that Washington's army, starting from West Point, could march more than half the way toward Philadelphia and still be supposed to be aiming at Staten island. Washington was a master hand for secrecy. When his movement was first disclosed, his own generals, as well as Sir HenryClinton, took it for granted that Staten island was the point aimed at. It was not until he had passed Philadelphia that Clinton began to surmise that he might be going down to Virginia.
When this fact at length dawned upon the British commander, he made a futile attempt at a diversion by sending Benedict Arnold to attack New London. It was as weak as the act of a drowning man who catches at a straw. Arnold's expedition, cruel and useless as it was, crowned his infamy. A sad plight for a man of his power! If he had only had more strength of character, he might now have been marching with his old friend Washington to victory. With this wretched affair at New London, the brilliant and wicked Benedict Arnold disappears from American history. He died in London, in 1801, a broken-hearted and penitent man, as his grandchildren tell us, praying God with his last breath to forgive his awful crime.
Surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown, Oct. 19, 1781.
Washington's march was so swift and so cunningly planned that nothing could check it. On the 26th of September the situation was complete. Washington had added his force to that of Lafayette, so that 16,000 men blockaded Cornwallis upon the Yorktown peninsula. The great French fleet, commanding the waters about Chesapeake bay, closed in behind and prevented escape. It was a very unusual thing for the French thus to get control of the water and defy the British on their own element. Itwas Washington's unwearied vigilance that, after waiting long for such a chance, had seized it without a moment's delay. As soon as Cornwallis was thus caught between a hostile army and a hostile fleet, the problem was solved. On the 19th of October the British army surrendered. Washington presently marched his army back to the Hudson and made his headquarters at Newburgh.
Overthrow of George III.'s political schemes, May, 1784.
When Lord North at his office in London heard the dismal news, he walked up and down the room, wringing his hands and crying, "O God, it is all over!" Yorktown was indeed decisive. In the course of the winter the British lost Georgia. The embers of Indian warfare still smouldered on the border, but the great War for Independence was really at an end. The king's friends had for some time been losing strength in England, and Yorktown completed their defeat. In March, 1782, Lord North's ministry resigned. A succession of short-lived ministries followed; first, Lord Rockingham's, until July, 1782; then Lord Shelburne's, until February, 1783; then, after five weeks without a government, there came into power the strange Coalition between Fox and North, from April to December. During these two years the king was trying to intrigue with one interest against another so as to maintain his own personal government. With this end in view he tried the bold experiment of dismissing the Coalition andmaking the young William Pitt prime minister, without a majority in Parliament. After a fierce constitutional struggle, which lasted all winter, Pitt dissolved Parliament, and in the new election in May, 1784, obtained the greatest majority ever given to an English minister. But the victory was Pitt's and the people's, not the king's. This election of 1784 overthrew all the cherished plans of George III. in pursuance of which he had driven the American colonies into rebellion. It established cabinet government more firmly than ever, so that for the next seventeen years the real ruler of Great Britain was William Pitt.
CHAPTER VIII.BIRTH OF THE NATION.
The treaty of peace, 1782-83.
The year 1782 was marked by great victories for the British in the West Indies and at Gibraltar. But they did not alter the situation in America. The treaty of peace by which Great Britain acknowledged the independence of the United States was made under Lord Shelburne's ministry in the autumn of 1782, and adopted and signed by the Coalition on the 3d of September, 1783. The negotiations were carried on at Paris by Franklin, Jay, and John Adams, on the part of the Americans; and they won a diplomatic victory in securing for the United States the country between the Alleghany mountains and the Mississippi river. This was done against the wishes of the French government, which did not wish to see the United States become too powerful. At the same time Spain recovered Minorca and the Floridas. France got very little except the satisfaction of having helped in diminishing the British empire.
Troubles with the army, 1781-83.
The return of peace did not bring contentment to the Americans. Because Congress had no means of raising a revenue or enforcing itsdecrees, it was unable to make itself respected either at home or abroad. For want of pay the army became very troublesome. In January, 1781, there had been a mutiny of Pennsylvania and New Jersey troops which at one moment looked very serious. In the spring of 1782 some of the officers, disgusted with the want of efficiency in the government, seem to have entertained a scheme for making Washington king; but Washington met the suggestion with a stern rebuke. In March, 1783, inflammatory appeals were made to the officers at the headquarters of the army at Newburgh. It seems to have been intended that the army should overawe Congress and seize upon the government until the delinquent states should contribute the money needed for satisfying the soldiers and other public creditors. Gates either originated this scheme or willingly lent himself to it, but an eloquent speech from Washington prevailed upon the officers to reject and condemn it.
On the 19th of April, 1783, the eighth anniversary of Lexington, the cessation of hostilities was formally proclaimed, and the soldiers were allowed to go home on furloughs. The army was virtually disbanded. There were some who thought that this ought not to be done while the British forces still remained in New York; but Congress was afraid of the army and quite ready to see it scattered. On the 21st of June Congress wasdriven from Philadelphia by a small band of drunken soldiers clamorous for pay. It was impossible for Congress to get money. Of the Continental taxes assessed in 1783, only one fifth part had been paid by the middle of 1785. After peace was made, France had no longer any end to gain by lending us money, and European bankers, as well as European governments, regarded American credit as dead.
Congress unable to fulfil the treaty.
There was a double provision of the treaty which could not be carried out because of the weakness of Congress. It had been agreed that Congress should request the state governments to repeal various laws which they had made from time to time confiscating the property of Tories and hindering the collection of private debts due from American to British merchants. Congress did make such a request, but it was not heeded. The laws hindering the payment of debts were not repealed; and as for the Tories, they were so badly treated that between 1783 and 1785 more than 100,000 left the country. Those from the southern states went mostly to Florida and the Bahamas; those from the north made the beginnings of the Canadian states of Ontario and New Brunswick. A good many of them were reimbursed for their losses by Parliament.
Great Britain retaliates, presuming upon the weakness of the feeling of union among the states.
When the British government saw that these provisions of the treaty were not fulfilled, it retaliated by refusing to withdraw its troops fromthe northern and western frontier posts. The British army sailed from Charleston on the 14th of December, 1782, and from New York on the 25th of November, 1783, but in contravention of the treaty small garrisons remained at Ogdensburgh, Oswego, Niagara, Erie, Sandusky, Detroit, and Mackinaw until the 1st of June, 1796. Besides this, laws were passed which bore very severely upon American commerce, and the Americans found it impossible to retaliate because the different states would not agree upon any commercial policy in common. On the other hand, the states began making commercial war upon each other, with navigation laws and high tariffs. Such laws were passed by New York to interfere with the trade of Connecticut, and the merchants of the latter state began to hold meetings and pass resolutions forbidding all trade whatever with New York.
The old quarrels about territory were kept up, and in 1784 the troubles in Wyoming and in the Green Mountains came to the very verge of civil war. People in Europe, hearing of such things, believed that the Union would soon fall to pieces and become the prey of foreign powers. It was disorder and calamity of this sort that such men as Hutchinson had feared, in case the control of Great Britain over the colonies should cease. George III. looked upon it all with satisfaction,and believed that before long the states would one after another become repentant and beg to be taken back into the British empire.
The craze for paper money and the Shays rebellion, 1786.
The troubles reached their climax in 1786. Because there seemed to be no other way of getting money, the different states began to issue their promissory notes, and then tried to compel people by law to receive such notes as money. There was a strong "paper money" party in all the states except Connecticut and Delaware. The most serious trouble was in Rhode Island and Massachusetts. In both states the farmers had been much impoverished by the war. Many farms were mortgaged, and now and then one was sold to satisfy creditors. The farmers accordingly clamoured for paper money, but the merchants in towns like Boston or Providence, understanding more about commerce, were opposed to any such miserable makeshifts. In Rhode Island the farmers prevailed. Paper money was issued, and harsh laws were passed against all who should refuse to take it at its face value. The merchants refused, and in the towns nearly all business was stopped during the summer of 1786.
In the Massachusetts legislature the paper money party was defeated. There was a great outcry among the farmers against merchants and lawyers, and some were heard to maintain that the time had come for wiping out all debts. InAugust, 1786, the malcontents rose in rebellion, headed by one Daniel Shays, who had been a captain in the Continental army. They began by trying to prevent the courts from sitting, and went on to burn barns, plunder houses, and attack the arsenal at Springfield. The state troops were called out, under General Lincoln, two or three skirmishes were fought, in which a few lives were lost, and at length in February, 1787, the insurrection was suppressed.
The Mississippi question, 1786.
At that time the mouth of the Mississippi river and the country on its western bank belonged to Spain. Kentucky and Tennessee were rapidly becoming settled by people from Virginia and North Carolina, and these settlers wished to trade with New Orleans. The Spanish government was unfriendly and wished to prevent such traffic. The people of New England felt little interest in the southwestern country or the Mississippi river, but were very anxious to make a commercial treaty with Spain. The government of Spain refused to make such a treaty except on condition that American vessels should not be allowed to descend the Mississippi river below the mouth of the Yazoo. When Congress seemed on the point of yielding to this demand, the southern states were very angry. The New England states were equally angry at what they called the obstinacy of the South, and threats of secession were heard on both sides.
The northwestern territory; the first national domain, 1780-87.
Perhaps the only thing that kept the Union from falling to pieces in 1786 was the Northwestern Territory, which George Rogers Clark had conquered in 1779, and which skilful diplomacy had enabled us to keep when the treaty was drawn up in 1782. Virginia claimed this territory and actually held it, but New York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut also had claims upon it. It was the idea of Maryland that such a vast region ought not to be added to any one state, or divided between two or three of the states, but ought to be the common property of the Union. Maryland had refused to ratify the Articles of Confederation until the four states that claimed the northwestern territory should yield their claims to the United States. This was done between 1780 and 1785, and thus for the first time the United States government was put in possession of valuable property which could be made to yield an income and pay debts. This piece of property was about the first thing in which all the American people were alike interested, after they had won their independence. It could be opened to immigration and made to pay the whole cost of the war and much more. During these troubled years Congress was busy with plans for organizing this territory, which at length resulted in the famous Ordinance of 1787 laying down fundamental laws for the government of what has since developed into thefive great states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin. While other questions tended to break up the Union, the questions that arose in connection with this work tended to hold it together.
The convention at Annapolis, Sept. 11, 1786.
The need for easy means of communication between the old Atlantic states and this new country behind the mountains led to schemes which ripened in course of time into the construction of the Chesapeake and Ohio and the Erie canals. In discussing such schemes, Maryland and Virginia found it necessary to agree upon some kind of commercial policy to be pursued by both states. Then it was thought best to seize the occasion for calling a general convention of the states to decide upon a uniform system of regulations for commerce. This convention was held at Annapolis in September, 1786, but only five states had sent delegates, and so the convention adjourned after adopting an address written by Alexander Hamilton, calling for another convention to meet at Philadelphia on the second Monday of the following May, "to devise such further provisions as shall appear necessary to render the constitution of the federal government adequate to the exigencies of the Union."
The Shays rebellion and the quarrel about the Mississippi river had by this time alarmed people so that it began to be generally admitted that thefederal government must be in some way strengthened. If there were any doubt as to this, it was removed by the action of New York. An amendment to the Articles of Confederation had been proposed, giving Congress the power of levying customs-duties and appointing the collectors. By the summer of 1786 all the states except New York had consented to this. But in order to amend the articles, unanimous consent was necessary, and in February, 1787, New York's refusal defeated the amendment. Congress was thus left without any immediate means of raising a revenue, and it became quite clear that something must be done without delay.
The Federal Convention at Philadelphia, May-Sept., 1787.
The famous Federal Convention met at Philadelphia in May, 1787, and remained in session four months, with Washington presiding. Its work was the framing of the government under which we are now living, and in which the evils of the old confederation have been avoided. The trouble had all the while been how to get the whole American peoplerepresentedin some body that could thus rightfullytaxthe whole American people. This was the question which the Albany Congress had tried to settle in 1754, and which the Federal Convention did settle in 1787.
In the old confederation, starting with the Continental Congress in 1774, the government was all vested in a single body which represented states,but did not represent individual persons. It was for that reason that it was called a congress rather than a parliament. It was more like a congress of European states than the legislative body of a nation, such as the English parliament was. It had no executive and no judiciary. It could not tax, and it could not enforce its decrees.
The new government, in which the Revolution was consummated, 1789.
The new constitution changed all this by creating the House of Representatives which stood in the same relation to the whole American people as the legislative assembly of each single state to the people of that state. In this body the people were represented, and could therefore tax themselves. At the same time in the Senate the old equality between the states was preserved. All control over commerce, currency, and finance was lodged in this new Congress, and absolute free trade was established between the states. In the office of President a strong executive was created. And besides all this there was a system of federal courts for deciding questions arising under federal laws. Most remarkable of all, in some respects, was the power given to the federal Supreme Court, of deciding, in special cases, whether laws passed by the several states, or by Congress itself, were conformable to the Federal Constitution.
Many men of great and various powers played important parts in effecting this change of governmentwhich at length established the American Union in such a form that it could endure; but the three who stood foremost in the work were George Washington, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton. Two other men, whose most important work came somewhat later, must be mentioned along with these, for the sake of completeness. It was John Marshall, chief justice of the United States from 1801 to 1835, whose profound decisions did more than those of any later judge could ever do toward establishing the sense in which the Constitution must be understood. It was Thomas Jefferson, president of the United States from 1801 to 1809, whose sound democratic instincts and robust political philosophy prevented the federal government from becoming too closely allied with the interests of particular classes, and helped to make it what it should be,—a "government of the people, by the people, and for the people." In themakingof the government under which we live, these five names—Washington, Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson, and Marshall—stand before all others. I mention them here chronologically, in the order of the times at which their influence was felt at its maximum.
When the work of the Federal Convention was sanctioned by the Continental Congress and laid before the people of the several states, to be ratified by special conventions in each state, there was earnest and sometimes bitter discussion. Manypeople feared that the new government would soon degenerate into a tyranny. But the century and a half of American history that had already elapsed had afforded such noble political training for the people that the discussion was, on the whole, more reasonable and more fruitful than any that had ever before been undertaken by so many men. The result was the adoption of the Federal Constitution, followed by the inauguration of George Washington, on the 30th of April, 1789, as President of the United States. And with this event our brief story may fitly end.
COLLATERAL READING.
The following books may be recommended to the reader who wishes to get a general idea of the American Revolution:—
1.General Works. The most comprehensive and readable account is contained in Mr. Fiske's larger work,The American Revolution, in two volumes. The subject is best treated from the biographical point of view in Washington Irving'sLife of Washington, vols. i.-iv. Mr. Fiske has abridged and condensed these four octavos into one stout duodecimo entitledWashington and his Country, Boston, Ginn & Co., 1887. Our young friends may find Frothingham'sRise of the Republicrather close reading, but one can hardly name a book that will more richly reward them for their study. Green'sHistorical View of the Revolutionshould be read by every one. Carrington'sBattles of the Revolutionmakes the military operations quite clear with numerous maps. Very young readers find it interesting to begin with Coffin'sBoys of Seventy-Six, or C. H. Woodman'sBoys and Girls of the Revolution. The social life of the time is admirably portrayed in Scudder'sMen and Manners in America One Hundred Years Ago. See also Thornton'sPulpit of the Revolution. Lossing'sField Book of the Revolution—two royal octavos profusely illustrated—is an excellent book to browse in. Lecky'sEngland in the Eighteenth Centurygives an admirable statement of England's position.
2.Biographies. Lodge'sGeorge Washington, 2 vols., Scudder'sGeorge Washington, Tyler'sPatrick Henry, Tudor'sOtis, Hosmer'sSamuel Adams, Morse'sJohn Adams, Frothingham'sWarren, Quincy'sJosiah Quincy, Parton'sFranklinandJefferson, Fonblanque'sBurgoyne, Lossing'sSchuyler, Riedesel'sMemoirs, Stone'sBrant, Arnold'sArnold, Sargent'sAndré, Kapp'sSteubenandKalb, Greene'sGreene, Amory'sSullivan, Graham'sMorgan, Simms'sMarion, Abbott'sPaul Jones, John Adams'sLetters to his Wife, Morse'sHamilton, Gay'sMadison, Roosevelt'sGouverneur Morris, Russell'sFox, Albemarle'sRockingham, Fitzmaurice'sShelburne, MacKnight'sBurke, Macaulay's essay onChatham.
3.Fiction. Cooper'sChainbearer, Miss Sedgwick'sLinwoods, Paulding'sOld Continental, Mrs. Child'sRebels, Motley'sMorton's Hope, Herman Melville'sIsrael Potter, Kennedy'sHorse Shoe Robinson. There is an account of the battle of Bunker Hill in Cooper'sLionel Lincoln. Thompson'sGreen Mountain Boysgives interesting descriptions of many of the events in that region. The border warfare is treated in Grace Greenwood'sForest Tragedyand Hoffman'sGreyslaer. Simms'sPartisanandMellichampedeal with events in South Carolina in 1780, and later events are covered in hisScout,Katharine Walford,Woodcraft,Forayers, andEutaw. See also Miss Sedgwick'sWalter Thornley, and Cooper'sPilotandSpy, and H. C. Watson'sCamp Fires of the Revolution. The scenes ofPaul and Persis, by Mary E. Brush, are laid in the Mohawk Valley.
For further references, see Justin Winsor'sReader's Handbook of the American Revolution, a book which is absolutely indispensable to every one who wishes to study the subject.
INDEX.
Adams, John,46,84,88,89,98,100,113,149,182.Adams, Samuel,53,58,68,71,72,73,75,78,82,84,85,88,107,149.Aix-la-Chapelle, treaty of,6.Albany Congress,34,190.Albany Plan,35.Algonquins,28-30,37.Alleghany mountains,27.Allen, Ethan,87.André John,170,171.Andros, Sir Edmund,22.Annapolis convention,189.Antislavery feeling,126.Armada, the Invincible,6.Armed Neutrality,159.Army, continental,88,124;disbanded,183.Arnold, Benedict,87,93,94,118,136,137,143,167-171,173,175,177,179.Ashe, Samuel,163.Attucks, Crispus,75.Augusta, Ga.,163.
Bacon's rebellion,21.Baltimore, Congress flees to,118.Barons' War,19.Barré, Isaac,69,75.Barter,162.Baum, Col.,134.Bemis Heights,143.Bennington,133,134,137,172.Berkeley, Sir W.,21.Bernard, Sir F.,68,72.Boston,7,44-47;"Massacre,"72-75;"Tea Party,"79-83;Port Bill,83;siege of,87-94.Braddock, Edward,36.Brandywine,141.Brant, Joseph,108,135,136,154,155.Breymann, Col.,134.Briar Creek,163.Brooklyn Heights,111-113,128.Bunker Hill,91,128.Burgoyne, John,90,125-134,137,140-143,148,150,158,172.Burlington, N. J.,120.Burke, Edmund,62,69.Butler, Col. John,134,154.Butts Hill,154.Byron, Admiral,150.
Cahokia,156.Calvert family,13.Camden, Lord,69.Camden, S. C.,166,171,173,176.Campbell, Col. William,171.Canada, invasion of,93,94.Canals,189.Carleton, Sir Guy,93,94,109,115,118.Carlisle, Pa.,26.Carr, Dabney,79.Castle William,73,75.Caudine Fork,144.Cavaliers,9.Cavendish, Lord John,69.Charles II.,22,43,45.Charleston, S. C.,80,165.Charlestown, Mass.,86Chase, Samuel,84.Cherry Valley,154.Choiseul, Duke de,38.Clark, George Rogers,156,188.Cleaveland, Col.,171.Cleveland, Grover,1.Clinton, Sir H.,90,96,140,142,150-152,156-158,164,165,178,179.Coalition ministry,180.Cobden, Richard,61.Colonial trade,42-44.Committees of correspondence,79.Commons, House of,19,58-61.Concord,85,86.Congress, Continental,79,84,87-90,100-103,106,115-117,161,162,183,184,191.Congress, Stamp Act,56.Connecticut,13,21,23,77,98,156.Conway, Henry,69.Conway Cabal,148,149.Cornwallis, Lord,104,121,122,165,171-180.Cowpens,174.Cromwell, Oliver,9.Crown Point,87.Currency, Continental,162,166.
Deane, Silas,123.Declaration of Independence,97-103,127.Declaratory Act,58.Delaware,9,10.Delaware river,142.Denmark,159.Desertions,166.D'Estaing, Count,151-154,164.Dickinson, John,84,92,98,101,102.Discovery, French doctrine of,27.Dorchester Heights,94,128.Dunmore, Lord,95.
"Early" American history,5.Edinburgh,159.Elkton,140,141.Elmira,155.Eutaw Springs,176.
Fairfield, Conn.,156.Federal convention,190,191.Ferguson, Major,171,172.Five Nations,29.Flamborough Head,150.Fort Duquesne,33;Edward,131,132,140;Lee,114-116;Moultrie,105;Necessity,33;Niagara,154,155;Stanwix,135-137;Washington,114-117,165;Watson,176.Forts on the Delaware,141.Fox, Charles,69,180.Franklin, Benjamin,34,54,89,113,123,182.Franklin, William,106.Fraser, Gen.,131.Frederick the Great,150.French power in Canada,10,20,26-38.Frontenac, Count,29.Frontier between English and French colonies,26.
Gage, Thomas,29,83,85,91,92.Gansevoort, Peter,135.Gaspee, schooner,77.Gates, Horatio,39,90,130,131,137,143,148,165,166,168,173.George III., his character and schemes,59-71,146;glee over news from Ticonderoga,120;tries to make an alliance with Russia,158,159;his schemes overthrown,180,181.Georgia,11,96,163.Germaine, Lord George,147,156,166.Germantown,141.Gibraltar,158,182.Gladstone, W. E.,61.Governments of the colonies,13-16.Grasse, Count de,178.Green Mountains,77,87,131,185.Greene, Nathanael,90,115,116,167,173-177.Grenville, George,41,49,51,54,124.Gridley, Jeremiah,46.Guilford Court House,175,177.
Hackensack,115,116.Hale, Nathan,114.Hamilton, commandant at Detroit,155.Hamilton, Alexander,189,192.Hancock, John,80,87,89.Harlem Heights,114,129.Harrison, Benjamin,6.Hastings, Warren,158.Heath, William,90,115.Henry VIII.,59.Henry, Patrick,48,55,58,84,144.Herkimer, Nicholas,135,136.Hessian troops,93.Hobkirk's Hill,176.Holland and Great Britain,160.Hopkins, Stephen,77.Howe, Richard, Lord,105,106,113,150,153.Howe, Sir William,39,90,94,104,105,112-118,125,127,137-143,148,150.Hubbardton,131.Hudson river,95,115,128,157,170.Hutchinson, Thomas,46,56,72,75,77,78,81,83,107,185.Hyder, Ali,158.