CHAPTER II.THE FERMENT OF AMERICAN LIBERTY.
In 1755, four military expeditions were planned by the Colonies: one against the French in Nova Scotia; one against Crown Point; one against Fort Niagara, and the fourth, that of Braddock, against the French posts along the Ohio river.
In 1758, additional expeditions were undertaken, the first against Louisburg, the second against Ticonderoga, and the third against Fort Du Quesne. Washington led the advance in the third, a successful attack, Nov. 25, 1758, thereby securing peace with the Indians on the border, and making the fort itself more memorable by changing its name to that of Fort Pitt (now Pittsburgh) in memory of William Pitt (Lord Chatham), the eminent British statesman, and the enthusiastic friend of America.
In 1759, Quebec was captured by the combined British and Colonial forces, and the tragic death of the two commanders, Wolfe and Montcalm, made the closing hours of the siege the last opportunity of their heroic valor. With the capture of Montreal in 1760, Canada came wholly under British control. In view of those campaigns, it was not strange that so many Colonial participants readily found places in the Continental Army at the commencement of the war for American Independence, and subsequently urged the acquisition of posts on the northern border with so much pertinacity and confidence.
In 1761, Spain joined France against Great Britain, but failed of substantial gain through that alliance, because the British fleets were able to master the West India possessions of Spain, and even to capture the city of Havana itself.
In 1763, a treaty was effected at Paris, which terminated these protracted inter-Colonial wars, so that the thirteen American colonies were finally relieved from the vexations and costly burdens of aiding the British crown to hold within its grasp so many and so widely separated portions of the American continent. In the ultimate settlement with Spain, England exchanged Havana for Florida; and France, with the exception of the city of New Orleans and its immediate vicinity, retired behind the Mississippi river, retaining, as a shelter for her fisheries, only the Canadian islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, which are still French possessions.
In view of the constantly increasing imposition of taxes upon the Colonies by the mother country, in order to maintain her frequent wars with European rivals, by land and sea, a convention was held at New York on the seventh day of October, 1765, called a Colonial Congress, “to consult as to their relations to England, and provide for their common safety.” Nine colonies were represented, and three others either ratified the action of the convention, or declared their sympathy with its general recommendations and plans. The very brief advance notice of the assembling of delegates, partly accounts for the failure of North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire, and Georgia, to be represented. But that convention made a formal “Declaration of Rights,” especially protesting that “their own representatives alone had the right to tax them,” and “their own juries to try them.”
As an illustration of the fact, that the suggestion ofsome common bond to unite the Colonies for general defence was not due to the agencies which immediately precipitated the American Revolution, it is to be noticed that as early as 1607, William Penn urged the union of the Colonies in some mutually related common support. The Six Nations (Indian), whom the British courted as allies against the French, and later, against their own blood, had already reached a substantial Union among themselves, under the name of the Iroquois Confederacy; and it is a historical fact of great interest, that their constitutional league for mutual support against a common enemy, while reserving absolute independence in every local function or franchise, challenged the appreciative indorsement of Thomas Jefferson when he entered upon the preparation of a Constitution for the United States of America.
And in 1722, Daniel Coxe, of New Jersey, suggested a practical union of the Colonies for the consolidation of interests common to each. In 1754, when the British government formally advised the Colonies to secure the friendship of the Six Nations against the French, Benjamin Franklin prepared a form for such union. Delegates from New England, as well as from New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, met at Albany on the fourth of July, 1754, the very day of the surrender of Fort Necessity to the French, for consideration of the suggested plan. The King’s council rejected it, because it conceded too much independence of action to the people of the Colonies, and the Colonies refused to accept its provisions, because it left too much authority with the King.
Ten years later, when the Colonies had been freed from the necessity of sacrificing men and money to support the British authority against French, Spanish, and Indian antagonists, the poverty of the British treasury drove George Grenville, then Prime Minister, to a system ofrevenue from America, through the imposition of duties upon Colonial imports. In 1755 followed the famous Stamp Act. Its passage by Parliament was resisted by statesmen of clear foresight, with sound convictions of the injustice of taxing their brethren in America who had no representatives in either House of Parliament; but in vain, and this explosive bomb was hurled across the sea. Franklin, then in London, thus wrote to Charles Thompson, who afterwards became secretary of the Colonial Congress: “The sun of Liberty has set. The American people must light the torch of industry and economy.” To this Thompson replied: “Be assured that we shall light torches of quite another sort.”
The explosion of this missile, charged with death to every noble incentive to true loyalty to the mother country, dropped its inflammatory contents everywhere along the American coast. The Assembly of Virginia was first to meet, and its youngest member, Patrick Henry, in spite of shouts of “Treason,” pressed appropriate legislation to enactment. Massachusetts, unadvised of the action of Virginia, with equal spontaneity, took formal action, inviting the Colonies to send delegates to a Congress in New York, there to consider the grave issues that confronted the immediate future. South Carolina was the first to respond. When Governor Tryon, of North Carolina, afterwards the famous Governor of New York, asked Colonel (afterwards General) Ashe, Speaker of the North Carolina Assembly, what the House would do with the Stamp Act, he replied, “We will resist its execution to the death.”
On the seventh of October the Congress assembled and solemnly asserted, as had a former convention, that “their own representatives alone had the right to tax them,” and “their own juries to try them.” Throughout the coast line of towns and cities, interrupted business,muffled and tolling bells, flags at half-mast, and every possible sign of stern indignation and deep distress, indicated the resisting force which was gathering volume to hurl a responsive missile into the very council chamber of King George himself.
“Sons of Liberty” organized in force, but secretly; arming themselves for the contingency of open conflict. Merchants refused to import British goods. Societies of the learned professions and of all grades of citizenship agreed to dispense with all luxuries of English production or import. Under the powerful and magnetic sway of Pitt and Burke, this Act was repealed in 1766; but even this repeal was accompanied by a “Declaratory Act,” which reserved for the Crown “therightto bind the Colonies, in all cases whatsoever.”
Pending all these fermentations of the spirit of liberty, George Washington, of Virginia, was among the first to recognize the coming of a conflict in which the Colonial troops would no longer be a convenient auxiliary to British regulars, in a common cause, but would confront them in a life or death struggle, for rights which had been guaranteed by Magna Charta, and had become the vested inheritance of the American people. Suddenly, as if to impress its power more heavily upon the restless and overwrought Colonists, Parliament required them to furnish quarters and subsistence for the garrisons of towns and cities. In 1768, two regiments arrived at Boston, ostensibly to “preserve the public peace,” but, primarily, to enforce the revenue measures of Parliament.
In 1769, Parliament requested the King to “instruct the Governor of Massachusetts” to “forward to England for trial, upon charges of high treason,” several prominent citizens of that colony “who had been guilty of denouncing Parliamentary action.” The protests of the ProvincialAssemblies of Virginia and North Carolina against the removal of their citizens, for trial elsewhere, were answered by the dissolution of those bodies by their respective royal governors. On the fifth day of May, 1769, Lord North, who had become Prime Minister, proposed to abolish all duties, except upon tea. Later, in 1770, occurred the “Boston Massacre,” which is ever recalled to mind by a monument upon the Boston Common, in honor of the victims. In 1773 “Committees of Correspondence” were selected by most of the Colonies, for advising the people of all sections, whenever current events seemed to endanger the public weal. One writer said of this state of affairs: “Common origin, a common language, and common sufferings had already established between the Colonies a union of feeling and interest; and now, common dangers drew them together more closely.”
But the tax upon tea had been retained, as the expression of the reserved right to tax at will, under the weak assumption that the Colonists would accept this single tax and pay a willing consideration for the use of tea in their social and domestic life. The shrewd and patriotic citizens, however boyish it may have seemed to many, found a way out of the apparent dilemma, and on the night of December 16, 1773, the celebrated Boston Tea Party gave an entertainment, using three hundred and fifty-two chests of tea for the festive occasion, and Boston Harbor for the mixing caldron.
In 1774, the “Boston Port Bill” was passed, nullifying material provisions of the Massachusetts Charter, prohibiting intercourse with Boston by sea, and substituting Salem for the port of entry and as the seat of government for the Province. It is to be noticed, concerning the various methods whereby the Crown approached the Colonies, in the attempt to subordinate all rights to theroyal will, that Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, until 1692, were charter governments, whereby laws were framed and executed by the freemen of each colony. The proprietary governments were Pennsylvania with Maryland, and at first New York, New Jersey, and the Carolinas. In all of these, the proprietors, under certain restrictions, established and conducted their own systems of rule. There were also the royal governments, those of New Hampshire, Virginia, Georgia, and afterwards Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and the Carolinas. In these, appointments of the chief officers pertained to the Crown.
At the crisis noticed, General Gage had been appointed Governor of Massachusetts Colony, as well as commander-in-chief, and four additional regiments had been despatched to his support. But Salem declined to avail herself of the proffered boon of exceptional franchises, and the House of Burgesses of Virginia ordered that “the day when the Boston Port Bill was to go into effect should be observed as a day of fasting, humiliation, and prayer.”
The Provincial Assembly did indeed meet at Salem, but solemnly resolved that it was expedient, at once, to call a General Congress of all the Colonies, to meet the unexpected disfranchisement of the people, and appointed five delegates to attend such Congress. All the Colonies except Georgia, whose governor prevented the election of delegates, were represented.
This body, known in history as the First Continental Congress, assembled in Carpenter’s Hall, Philadelphia, on the fifth day of September, 1774. Peyton Randolph, of Virginia, was elected president, and Charles Thompson, of Pennsylvania, was elected secretary. Among the representative men who took part in its solemn deliberations must be named Samuel Adams and John Adams, ofMassachusetts; Philip Livingstone and John Jay, of New York; John Dickinson, of Pennsylvania; Christopher Gadsden and John Rutledge, of South Carolina; Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, and George Washington, of Virginia.
During an address by Lord Chatham before the British House of Lords, he expressed his opinion of the men who thus boldly asserted their inalienable rights as Englishmen against the usurping mandates of the Crown, in these words: “History, my lords, has been my favorite study; and in the celebrated writers of antiquity have I often admired the patriotism of Greece and Rome; but, my lords, I must declare and avow, that in the master states of the world, I know not the people, or senate, who, in such a complication of difficult circumstances, can stand in preference to the delegates of America assembled in General Congress at Philadelphia.” This body resolved to support Massachusetts in resistance to the offensive Acts of Parliament; made a second “Declaration of Rights,” and advised an American association for non-intercourse with England. It also prepared another petition to the King, as well as an address to the people of Great Britain and Canada, and then provided for another Congress, to be assembled the succeeding May. During its sessions, the Massachusetts Assembly also convened and resolved itself into a Provincial Congress, electing John Hancock as president, and proceeded to authorize a body of militia, subject to instant call, and therefore to be designated as “Minute Men.” A Committee of Safety was appointed to administer public affairs during the recess of the Congress. When Captain Robert Mackenzie, of Washington’s old regiment, intimated that Massachusetts was rebellious, and sought independence, Washington used this unequivocal language in reply: “If the ministry are determined to pushmatters to extremity, I add, as my opinion, that more blood will be spilled than history has ever furnished instances of, in the annals of North America; and such a vital wound will be given to the peace of this great country, as time itself cannot cure, or eradicate the remembrance of.”
Early in 1775 Parliament rejected a “Conciliatory Bill,” which had been introduced by Lord Chatham, and passed an Act in special restraint of New England trade, which forbade even fishing on the banks of Newfoundland. New York, North Carolina, and Georgia were excepted, in the imposition of restrictions upon trade in the middle and southern Colonies, in order by a marked distinction between Colonies, to conserve certain aristocratic influences, and promote dissension among the people; but all such transparent devices failed to subdue the patriotic sentiment which had already become universal in its expression.
At that juncture the English people themselves did not apprehend rightly the merits of the dawning struggle, nor resent the imposition by Parliament, of unjust, unequal, and unconstitutional laws upon their brethren in America. Dr. Franklin thus described their servile attitude toward the Crown: “Every man in England seems to consider himself as a piece of a sovereign; seems to jostle himself into the throne with the King; and talks of ‘oursubjects in the Colonies.’”
The ferment of patriotic sentiment was deep, subtle, intense, and ready for deliverance. The sovereignty of the British crown and the divine rights of man were to be subjected to the stern arbitrament of battle. One had fleets, armies, wealth, prestige, and power, unsustained by the principles of genuine liberty which had distinguished the British Constitution above all other modern systems of governmental control; while the scatteredtwo millions of earnest, patriotic Englishmen across the sea, who, from their first landing upon the shores of the New World had honored every principle which could impart dignity and empire to their mother country, were to balance the scale of determining war by the weight of loyalty to conscience and to God.