[Illustration: GEORGE WASHINGTON]
=ALLYN AND BACON’S SERIES OF SCHOOL HISTORIES=
A HISTORY OF
THE UNITED STATES
BY
CHARLES KENDALL ADAMS
LATE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
AND
WILLIAM P. TRENT
PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH LITERATURE IN COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
REVISED EDITION
A L L Y N A N D B A C O N
Boston and Chicago
ALLYN AND BACON’S SERIES OF
SCHOOL HISTORIES
_12mo, half leather, numerous maps, plans, and
illustrations_
———————
ANCIENT HISTORY. By Willis M. West of the
University of Minnesota.
MODERN HISTORY. By Willis M. West.
HISTORY OF ENGLAND. By Charles M. Andrews of Bryn
Mawr College.
HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES. By Charles K.
Adams, and William P. Trent of Columbia
University.
THE ANCIENT WORLD. By Willis M. West.
Also in two volumes: PART I: GREECE AND THE
EAST. PART II: ROME AND THE WEST.
COPYRIGHT, 1903 AND 1909,
BY WILLIAM P. TRENT AND BY JOHN P. FISK,
L. S. HANKS, AND BURR W. JONES, EXECUTORS
OF THE ESTATE OF CHARLES KENDALL ADAMS.
Norwood Press
J. S. Cushing & Co.—Berwick & Smith Co.
Norwood, Mass., U.S.A.
PREFACE.
THE lamented death of President Adams entails on me the duty of writing
the preface to our joint work,—a duty which, had he lived, would
naturally have fallen to him, since to his initiative and energy the
volume owes its existence. Fortunately, the entire manuscript had the
benefit of his wisdom and experience as teacher and investigator, and
the proofs of about half the book passed under his watchful supervision.
Five years ago, in a letter to me proposing the book, Dr. Adams gave,
among his reasons for wishing to add to the long list of school
histories of the United States, three principal objects:—
First, to present fully and with fairness the Southern point of view in
the great controversies that long threatened to divide the Union.
Second, to treat the Revolutionary War, and the causes that led to it,
impartially and with more regard for British contentions than has been
usual among American writers.
Third, to emphasize the importance of the West in the growth and
development of the United States.
These objects have been kept constantly in view. We felt, moreover, that
the development of institutions and government may justly be considered
of great importance, although naturally lacking in picturesqueness, and
we have endeavored to set in relief this evolutionary process. How far
we have succeeded in accomplishing the objects sought remains for others
to judge.
I cannot forbear to place on record here my appreciation of the
fortitude with which Dr. Adams bore his protracted sufferings and did
his work; of his conscientiousness in matters of minutest detail; of his
fairness and sympathy toward those with whom he did not agree, and of
the unfailing courtesy that marked every line of his correspondence.
Acknowledgment is due to the highly competent services of Miss May
Langdon White of New York, whom Dr. Adams selected to assist in the
revision of the work.
W. P. TRENT.
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY,
NEW YORK, November, 1902.
CONTENTS.
PAGE
LIST OF MAPS xvi
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS xvii
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE xx
PART I.—PERIOD OF DISCOVERY AND
SETTLEMENT, 1492–1765.
CHAPTER I.—DISCOVERY.
SECTION
1-3. The American Indians 1
4. Pre-Columbian Discoverers 4
5-13. Columbus and the Spanish Discoverers 7
14-16. The French Explorers 18
17-18. The English Explorers 20
19-20. Summary of Results 22
References 23
CHAPTER II.—THE FIRST PLANTATIONS AND COLONIES,
1607–1630.
21-28. The Settlement of Virginia 24
29-30. The Settlement of New York 29
31-36. The Pilgrims at Plymouth 31
37-38. The Settlement of Massachusetts 34
References 36
CHAPTER III.—SPREAD OF PLANTATIONS, 1630–1689.
39-41. The Settlement and Growth of Maryland 37
42-45. Development of Virginia 40
46-52. Development of New England 42
53-60. The New England Confederacy 46
61-71. Development of the Middle Colonies 51
72-76. The Southern Colonies 57
References 59
CHAPTER IV.—THE COUNTRY AT THE END OF THE
SEVENTEENTH CENTURY.
77-78. General Conditions 60
79-84. Characteristics of New England 61
85-86. Characteristics of the Middle Colonies 65
87-90. Characteristics of the Southern Colonies 66
References 68
CHAPTER V.—DEVELOPMENT OF THE COLONIES, 1690–1765.
91-94. Colonial Disputes 69
95-97. Virginia and Georgia 71
98-100. French Discoveries and Claims 73
101-116. Wars with the French 75
References 86
PART II.—PERIOD OF THE REVOLUTION, 1765–1789.
CHAPTER VI.—CAUSES OF THE REVOLUTION.
117-120. General Causes 87
121-126. The Question of Taxation 91
127-132. The Resistance of the Colonies 93
133-135. The Tax on Tea 98
136-139. New Legislation and Opposition 100
140-143. The Crisis 103
References 106
CHAPTER VII.—THE CAMPAIGNS OF 1775 AND 1776.
144-147. Early Movements 107
148-152. Washington in Command 110
153-158. The War in New York 114
159-160. General Condition of the Country 118
161-162. Failure of British Expeditions 119
163-165. The Declaration of Independence 121
166-176. The War in New Jersey 126
CHAPTER VIII.—THE CAMPAIGN OF 1777.
177-187. The Struggle for the Center 135
CHAPTER IX.—THE FRENCH ALLIANCE AND THE CAMPAIGNS
OF 1778 AND 1779.
188-193. A Winter of Discouragement 144
194-198. Prospects Brighten 149
199-207. Conditions West of the Alleghanies 152
208-209. The Conquest of the Northwest 158
210-212. The Victories of Paul Jones 159
CHAPTER X.—THE CAMPAIGNS OF 1780 AND 1781.
213-214. The War in the South 162
215-220. The Treason of Benedict Arnold 164
221-223. Causes of Discouragement 167
224-228. American Successes in the South 168
229-237. The Close of the War 172
CHAPTER XI.—THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION AND THE
CONSTITUTION.
238-243. Difficulties of Confederation 178
244-256. The Constitution 181
References 190
PART III.—THE ORGANIZATION OF POLITICAL PARTIES,
1789–1825.
CHAPTER XII.—THE COUNTRY AT THE CLOSE OF THE
EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.
257-262. General Conditions 191
263-264. Spirit of the People 194
References 195
CHAPTER XIII.—THE ADMINISTRATIONS OF WASHINGTON,
1789–1797.
265-268. Early Legislation and Parties 196
269-274. Difficulties of Administration 200
References 204
CHAPTER XIV.—THE ADMINISTRATION OF JOHN ADAMS,
1797–1801.
275-281. A Period of Dissensions 205
References 210
CHAPTER XV.—THE ADMINISTRATIONS OF JEFFERSON,
1801–1809.
282-284. Jeffersonian Policy 211
285-295. Measures and Events 214
296-297. Character of Jefferson’s Statesmanship 222
References 224
CHAPTER XVI.—THE ADMINISTRATIONS OF MADISON,
1809–1817.
298-303. Outbreak of War 225
304-305. Exploits of the Navy 230
306-310. Reverses and Successes 234
311-312. End of the War 238
313-315. The Disaffection of New England 240
316-319. Consequences of the War 242
References 244
CHAPTER XVII.—THE ADMINISTRATIONS OF MONROE,
1817–1825.
320-322. Character of the Period 245
323-326. Diplomatic Achievements 247
327-331. Slavery comes to the Front 250
332-334. Factional Politics 254
References 256
PART IV.—SPREAD OF DEMOCRACY AND EXTENSION OF
TERRITORY, 1825–1850.
CHAPTER XVIII.—THE ADMINISTRATION OF JOHN QUINCY
ADAMS, 1825—1829.
335-339. Failures of the Administration 257
340-342. The Tariff Question 260
References 262
CHAPTER XIX.—THE JACKSONIAN EPOCH, 1829–1837.
343-345. Political Conditions 263
346-350. Progress of the Nation 265
CHAPTER XX.—JACKSON’S FIRST ADMINISTRATION,
1829–1833.
351-354. A Popular Autocrat 271
355-356. The Debate over the Nature of the Constitution 274
357-358. The Tariff and Nullification 278
References 280
CHAPTER XXI.—JACKSON’S SECOND ADMINISTRATION,
1833—1837.
359-360. The Abolitionists 281
361-367. Financial Disturbances 283
References 287
CHAPTER XXII.—THE ADMINISTRATIONS OF VAN BUREN AND
OF HARRISON AND TYLER, 1837–1845.
368-371. A Period of Confusion 288
372-373. The Embarrassments of the Whigs 290
374-376. Texas and Oregon 293
References 295
CHAPTER XXIII.—THE ADMINISTRATION OF POLK,
1845–1849.
377-379. The Opening of the Mexican War 296
380-389. The Conduct and Results of the War 299
References 304
PART V.—THE EVE OF THE CIVIL WAR, 1850–1861.
CHAPTER XXIV.—THE ADMINISTRATION OF TAYLOR AND
FILLMORE, 1849–1853.
390-394. The Question of California 305
395-400. The Compromise of 1850 308
401-404. International and Domestic Affairs 313
CHAPTER XXV.—THE ADMINISTRATION OF PIERCE,
1853–1857.
405-410. The Confusion of Parties 317
411-415. Kansas-Nebraska Legislation 320
416-417. The Republican Party 323
CHAPTER XXVI.—THE ADMINISTRATION OF BUCHANAN,
1857–1861.
418-422. The Supreme Court and Slavery 326
423-427. Kansas and Utah 329
428-431. The Great Debates 332
432-434. John Brown and Public Opinion 336
435-439. The Presidential Campaign of 1860 339
440-446. Secession of the South 342
447-449. The Country in 1860–1861 348
References 350
PART VI.—THE CIVIL WAR AND RECONSTRUCTION,
1861–1869.
CHAPTER XXVII.—THE BEGINNINGS OF THE CIVIL WAR.
450-453. Opening of Hostilities 353
454-458. Military and Financial Strength of the Combatants 357
459-461. Description of the Seat of War 360
462-465. Domestic and Foreign Complications 362
466-471. Military Movements of 1861 365
472-474. International Difficulties 369
CHAPTER XXVIII.—THE CAMPAIGNS OF 1862.
475-483. The War in the West 372
484-489. The Work of the Navy 381
490-498. The War in the East 387
499-502. Public Feeling in the North and Great Britain 394
503-506. The War in the East continued 397
507-513. Domestic and Foreign Effects of the Campaigns of
1862 402
References 406
CHAPTER XXIX.—THE CAMPAIGNS OF 1863.
514-517. Vicksburg 408
518-522. The Chattanooga Campaign 411
523-525. The Eastern Campaigns 414
526-529. Embarrassment of the Federal Government 419
References 421
CHAPTER XXX.—THE CAMPAIGNS OF 1864.
530-533. Grant and Lee in Virginia 422
534-538. Sherman’s Campaigns 426
539-541. Naval Victories 430
542-546. Political Affairs 432
References 435
CHAPTER XXXI.—END OF THE WAR, 1865.
547-551. Movements of Sherman and Grant 436
552-554. The Death of President Lincoln 440
555-561. The Magnitude of the War 441
References 445
CHAPTER XXXII.—THE ADMINISTRATION OF JOHNSON:
RECONSTRUCTION, 1865–1869.
562-573. Different Policies of Reconstruction 446
574-576. Effects of Reconstruction 452
577-580. Johnson and Congress 454
References 457
PART VII.—PERIOD OF NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT,
1869–1902.
CHAPTER XXXIII.—THE ADMINISTRATIONS OF GRANT,
1869–1877.
581-588. Grant’s First Administration, 1869–1873 458
589-595. Grant’s Second Administration, 1873–1877 463
596-599. Party Politics 468
References 472
CHAPTER XXXIV.—THE ADMINISTRATIONS OF HAYES AND OF
GARFIELD AND ARTHUR, 1877–1885.
600-603. Industrial Problems 473
604-605. Financial Problems 475
606-609. Political Affairs 476
610-613. Chief Features of Arthur’s Administration 480
614-617. Political Events 483
618-619. The Presidential Campaign of 1884 485
References 487
CHAPTER XXXV.—FIRST ADMINISTRATION OF CLEVELAND,
1885–1889.
620-623. Important Measures and Reforms 488
624-628. Industrial and Financial Disturbances 491
References 494
CHAPTER XXXVI.—THE ADMINISTRATION OF BENJAMIN
HARRISON, 1889–1893.
629-638. Domestic Events and Measures 495
639-641. Foreign Affairs 500
642-643. Political Affairs 502
CHAPTER XXXVII.—SECOND ADMINISTRATION OF
CLEVELAND, 1893–1897.
644-649. Financial Legislation 504
650-651. Foreign Affairs 507
652-655. Domestic Events 510
References 513
CHAPTER XXXVIII.—THE ADMINISTRATIONS OF McKINLEY
AND ROOSEVELT, 1897–1902.
656-657. The Beginning of McKinley’s Administration 514
658-670. The War with Spain 515
671-676. Consequences of the War 524
677-681. The Close of McKinley’s First Administration 527
682-683. McKinley’s Second Administration 531
684-701. Roosevelt’s Administration 532
References 550
CHAPTER XXXIX.—PROGRESS OF THE EPOCH.
702-705. Spread and Character of the Population 551
706-709. National Development 553
APPENDIX.
_A._ Declaration of Independence 559
_B._ Constitution of the United States of America 564
Amendments to the Constitution 575
_C._ List of Presidents and Vice Presidents,
with their Terms of Office 579
INDEX 581
MAPS.
1. Distribution of the Barbarous Tribes East of the
Mississippi. (_Colored_)
2. French Explorations and Settlements. (_Colored_)
3. Central North America at the Beginning of the French
and Indian War, 1755. (_Colored_)
4. The British Colonies in 1764. (_Colored_)
5. Boston and Environs, 1775.
6. Boston and Environs, 1776.
7. Retreat across New Jersey.
8. The Middle Atlantic States.
9. Operations in the South, 1780–1781.
10. Operations at Yorktown.
11. Land Claims of the Thirteen Original States in 1783.
(_Colored_)
12. The Northwest Territory in 1787.
13. United States in 1789. (_Colored_)
14. The Areas of Freedom and Slavery in 1790. (_Colored_)
15. United States in 1800. (_Colored_)
16. The Louisiana Purchase.
17. Operations in Canada, 1812–1814.
18. Operations in the East, 1814.
19. Operations around Washington in 1814.
20. Southwestern Operations, 1813–1815.
21. Areas of Freedom and Slavery as established by the
Missouri Compromise of 1820. (_Colored_)
22a. United States in 1825–1830. (_Colored_)
22b. United States in 1825–1830. (_Colored_)
23. Territory claimed by Texas when admitted into the
Union, 1845. (_Colored_)
24. Territory ceded by Mexico, 1848 and 1853. (_Colored_)
25. United States—Acquisition of Territory. (_Colored_)
26. The Compromise of 1850. (_Colored_)
27. Areas of Freedom and Slavery in 1854. (_Colored_)
28a. United States in 1861. (_Colored_)
28b. United States in 1861. (_Colored_)
29. Operations in the West, 1862.
30. Norfolk, Hampton Roads.
31. The Vicksburg Campaign.
32. Operations in the East, 1864.
33. Sherman’s March to the Sea.
34. Colonial Possessions, 1909. (_Colored_)
35a. United States, 1909. (_Colored_)
35b. United States, 1909. (_Colored_)
ILLUSTRATIONS.
George Washington
Specimen of Indian Pottery
Inscription Rock, New Mexico
Diego de Landa’s Maya Alphabet
Long House of Iroquois
Cliff Dwellings on the Rio Mancos
North Pueblo of Taos
Specimen of Saga Manuscript
The Dighton Rock in Massachusetts
Old Mill at Newport
Columbus
Toscanelli’s Map
Ships of the Time of Columbus
Sebastian Cabot
Americus Vespucius
Balboa
Magellan
Ponce de Leon
De Soto
Jacques Cartier
Champlain
Sir Francis Drake
Sir Walter Raleigh
Ruins of the Old Church at Jamestown
John Smith
Pocahontas
Henry Hudson
New Amsterdam
Miles Standish
John Endicott
John Winthrop
First Lord Baltimore
Cecilius Calvert, Second Lord Baltimore
Sir Henry Vane
Sir Edmund Andros
Peter Stuyvesant
William Penn
Cotton Mather
James Oglethorpe
La Salle
Jonathan Edwards
Sieur de Bienville
General Montcalm
William Pitt, Earl of Chatham
General Wolfe
George III.
_Pennsylvania Journal_
Samuel Adams
James Otis
Patrick Henry
John Dickinson
Governor Hutchinson
Old South Church, Boston
Faneuil Hall, Boston
Carpenter’s Hall, Philadelphia
John Hancock
Statue of Minuteman at Concord
Gen. Joseph Warren
General Howe
Washington Elm, Cambridge
Col. Benedict Arnold
Gen. Nathanael Greene
Colonial Flag, 1776
Gen. William Moultrie
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
House in which Jefferson wrote the Declaration of
Independence
Independence Hall, Philadelphia
Benjamin Franklin
Portion of the Declaration of Independence
Continental Currency
Marquis de Lafayette
George Washington
Gen. Philip Schuyler
Gen. John Stark
Gen. John Burgoyne
Baron von Steuben
Gen. Horatio Gates
Gen. Anthony Wayne
Wayne’s Dispatch to Washington
Daniel Boone
Gen. John Sullivan
Gen. George Rogers Clark
Captain Paul Jones
Lord Cornwallis
Place of André’s Execution
Colonel Tarleton
Gen. Daniel Morgan
Alexander Hamilton
James Madison
Federal Hall, New York City
Blockhouse at Mackinaw
Stagecoach of the Time of Washington
John Jay
Mount Vernon
John Adams
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney
Albert Gallatin
John Marshall
Stephen Decatur
William Pitt the Younger
Fulton’s Steamboat
Robert Fulton
Eli Whitney
John C. Calhoun
Captain Isaac Hull
The _Constitution_
Captain James Lawrence
Captain Oliver H. Perry
Commodore Macdonough
Andrew Jackson
James Monroe
Henry Clay
John Randolph
John Quincy Adams
William Lloyd Garrison
Theodore Parker
Martin Van Buren
Daniel Webster
Thomas H. Benton
Robert Y. Hayne
Daniel Webster’s Carriage
Wendell Phillips
William Henry Harrison
John Tyler
Gen. Samuel Houston
James K. Polk
Gen. Zachary Taylor
Gen. Winfield Scott
Sutter’s Mill, California
Henry Clay
William H. Seward
Millard Fillmore
Franklin Pierce
Caleb Cushing
Charles Sumner
John C. Frémont
Roger B. Taney
Harriet Beecher Stowe
James Buchanan
Stephen A. Douglas
A Typical Pioneer’s Cabin
John Brown
Salmon P. Chase
Confederate Capitol, Montgomery, Ala.
Jefferson Davis
Alexander H. Stephens
Cyrus W. Field
Abraham Lincoln
Fort Sumter
Palmetto Flag (Confederate)
Confederate Flag
General Beauregard
Gen. Nathaniel Lyon
Edwin M. Stanton
Gen. Ulysses S. Grant
Gen. A. S. Johnston
Gen. Braxton Bragg
Gen. W. S. Rosecrans
Confederate Ram
John Ericsson
Admiral D. G. Farragut
Gen. George B. McClellan
Gen. J. E. Johnston
Stonewall Jackson
Gen. R. E. Lee
Maj. Gen. H. W. Halleck
Gen. John Pope
Gen. A. E. Burnside
Gen. George H. Thomas
Gen. William T. Sherman
Gen. Joseph Hooker
Gen. George G. Meade
Gen. James Longstreet
Gen. George E. Pickett
Gen. B. F. Butler
Gen. J. B. Hood
Gen. Philip H. Sheridan
Signatures to the Agreement for Surrender (Grant and
Lee)
House at Appomattox in which Surrender was arranged
Andrew Johnson
Thaddeus Stevens
Horatio Seymour
Horace Greeley
Gen. George A. Custer
Rutherford B. Hayes
Samuel J. Tilden
Gen. Winfield S. Hancock
James A. Garfield
Chester A. Arthur
Brooklyn Bridge
James G. Blaine
Grover Cleveland
Benjamin Harrison
William J. Bryan
William McKinley
Admiral George Dewey
Gen. W. R. Shafter
Admiral W. T. Sampson
The _Oregon_
Gen. Nelson A. Miles
Theodore Roosevelt
Admiral W. S. Schley
William H. Taft
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE.
1000 (_circa_) The Northmen reach America.
1492 Columbus lands at Watling’s Island.
1497 John Cabot lands near the mouth of the St. Lawrence.
1498 Voyage of Sebastian Cabot.
1499–1503 Americus Vespucius makes four voyages to America.
1512 Ponce de Leon discovers Florida.
1513 Balboa discovers the Pacific.
1520 Magellan passes the straits named after him.
1541 De Soto discovers the Mississippi River.
1562–1564 Huguenots in South Carolina and Florida.
1565 St. Augustine, Florida, founded by the Spanish.
1577–1580 Drake makes his voyage round the world.
1584–1587 Sir Walter Raleigh sends out colonists.
1607 Founding of Jamestown, Virginia.
1608 Champlain founds Quebec.
1609 Hudson discovers the Hudson River.
1614 The Dutch settle on Manhattan Island.
1620 Landing of the Pilgrims at Plymouth.
1626 The Dutch found New Amsterdam (New York City).
1630 Winthrop leads Puritan emigration to Massachusetts.
1630 Boston founded.
1632 Charter for Maryland granted the second Lord Baltimore.
1634 St. Mary’s, Maryland, founded.
1635 Settlements made in Connecticut.
1636 Roger Williams founds Providence, Rhode Island.
1636 Harvard College founded.
1638 New Haven settled.
1638 Swedes occupy Delaware.
1639 Constitution of Connecticut framed.
1643 New England Confederacy established.
1663 Government organized in North Carolina.
1664 The English seize New Netherland and settle in New
Jersey.
1670 Settlement in South Carolina. Charleston founded.
1674–1676 King Philip’s War.
1676 Bacon’s Rebellion in Virginia.
1682 La Salle explores Mississippi River.
1682 Philadelphia founded.
1689–1697 King William’s War.
1690 Colonial Congress at New York.
1692 Salem witchcraft.
1692 William and Mary College (Virginia) founded.
1697 Peace of Ryswick.
1701 Detroit founded.
1701 Yale College founded.
1702–1703 Queen Anne’s War.
1713 Treaty of Utrecht.
1718 The French found New Orleans.
1730 Baltimore founded.
1733 Savannah founded.
1744–1748 King George’s War.
1745 Capture of Louisburg.
1746 Princeton College founded.
1748 Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle.
1754 King’s (Columbia) College founded.
1754 French and Indian War begins (ends 1763).
1755 Braddock’s defeat.
1759 Capture of Quebec.
1763 Peace of Paris.
1763 The Conspiracy of Pontiac.
1765 The Stamp Act passed.
1766 Repeal of Stamp Act.
1767 Townshend Acts.
1768 British troops in Boston.
1770 Boston Massacre.
1773 “Boston Tea-party.”
1774 Boston Port Bill.
1774 First Continental Congress meets in Philadelphia.
1775 Battles of Lexington and Concord. Siege of Boston.
Battle of Bunker Hill.
1775 Mecklenburg Resolutions.
1776 Declaration of Independence.
1777 Victories of Princeton, Bennington, and Saratoga.
Defeats of Brandywine and Germantown. Washington at
Valley Forge.
1778 France becomes an ally of the United States.
1779 Naval victories of Paul Jones.
1780 Arnold’s treason.
1781 Articles of Confederation finally agreed to.
1781 Battle of Cowpens. Cornwallis surrenders at Yorktown.
1782 Preliminary treaty with Great Britain.
1783 Peace of Versailles.
1787 Federal Convention frames the Constitution.
1787 Ordinance concerning the Northwest Territory passed by
Congress.
1788 The states ratify the Constitution.
1789 Washington inaugurated at New York. Organization of
Congress and the Departments.
1792 Formation of Federalist and Democratic-Republican
parties.
1793 Washington’s proclamation of neutrality.
1795 Jay’s Treaty ratified.
1798 The Alien and Sedition Laws.
1798 The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions.
1800 The city of Washington becomes the national capital.
1801 Jefferson elected President by the House of
Representatives.
1803 Purchase of Louisiana.
1804 Expedition of Lewis and Clark.
1807 Fulton’s steamboat.
1807 Passage of the Embargo.
1809 The Non-intercourse Act.
1812 War with Great Britain.
1814 The British capture Washington.
1814 The Hartford Convention.
1814 The Treaty of Ghent.
1815 The battle of New Orleans.
1819 Florida purchased from Spain.
1820 First Missouri Compromise.
1823 Monroe Doctrine.
1825 Erie Canal opened.
1830 Hayne-Webster debate.
1830 Baltimore and Ohio Railroad opened.
1832 Nullification in South Carolina.
1832 Rise of the Whig party.
1833 Chicago founded.
1836 Independence of Texas.
1840 Sub-treasury system established.
1840 Liberty party formed.
1842 Ashburton Treaty.
1842 Dorr’s Rebellion in Rhode Island.
1844 Morse completes the first telegraph line.
1846–1848 Mexican War.
1846 Wilmot Proviso.
1846 Oregon Treaty.
1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
1848 Discovery of gold in California.
1850 Compromise of 1850.
1850 Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.
1852 Rise of Know-Nothing party.
1853 Gadsden Purchase.
1854 Kansas-Nebraska Bill.
1854 Republican party formed.
1855 Struggle in Kansas.
1857 Dred Scott Decision.
1858 First Atlantic cable.
1858 Lincoln-Douglas debates.
1859 John Brown’s raid.
1860 Election of Lincoln. Secession of South Carolina.
1861–1865 The Civil War.
1862 Fight between _Merrimac_ and _Monitor_.
1863 Proclamation of Emancipation.
1863 Battle of Gettysburg. Capture of Vicksburg.
1864 Battle of the Wilderness.
1865 Surrender of Lee and Johnson.
1865 Assassination of Lincoln.
1866 Successful laying of the Atlantic cable.
1867 Congressional system of reconstruction.
1867 Purchase of Alaska.
1868 Impeachment of President Johnson.
1869 Completion of the Pacific Railroad.
1871 Treaty of Washington.
1876 Electoral Commission.
1877 Troops withdrawn from the South.
1879 Resumption of specie payments.
1883 Civil Service Reform Commission.
1892 Rise of People’s Party.
1898 War declared with Spain. Treaty of Paris. Acquisition
of the Philippines.
1898 Annexation of Hawaii.
1901 Hay-Pauncefote Treaty.
1902 Panama Canal authorized.
1905 Treaty of Portsmouth.
1907 Financial crisis.
[Illustration: =Distribution of the Barbarous Tribes
East of the Mississippi=]
PART I.
PERIOD OF DISCOVERY AND SETTLEMENT,
1492–1765.
* * * * *
CHAPTER I.
=DISCOVERY.=
THE AMERICAN INDIANS.
[Illustration: SPECIMEN OF INDIAN POTTERY,
from a mound near Pecan Point,
Arkansas. Now in the National
Museum at Washington.]
[Illustration: DIEGO DE LANDA’S MAYA
ALPHABET.]
=1. The Aborigines.=—When America became known to Europe at the end of
the fifteenth century, it was by no means an uninhabited country.
Wherever the discoverers effected a landing, and however far they pushed
inland, they found themselves confronted by native inhabitants of
varying degrees of savagery. Hence the settlement of both Americas, from
first to last, has been dependent upon the supplanting of one race by
another or upon their intermixture.
=2. Characteristics of the Indians.=—The original inhabitants of both
continents have been known as Indians, in consequence of a mistake made
by Columbus (§§ 5-7). The North American Indians were fiercer foes than
the native Mexicans and Peruvians whom the Spaniards, under Cortez and
Pizarro, overcame, and with whom they intermarried. We know, however,
from linguistic characteristics, that all the aborigines from the Arctic
Circle to Cape Horn belonged to the same race. How they first came to
America is a matter of dispute; but their main peculiarities are well
understood. In Peru and Mexico they had made some progress toward
civilization. They constructed good roads, were not unskillful artisans,
and had even learned some astronomy. But they lived in large communal
groups under their chiefs, and had made slight advance in the art of
government; hence they fell an easy prey to small bodies of Spaniards.
Similar in character to the Mexicans, but inferior to them, were the
Pueblos and Cliff-dwellers of the region of New Mexico, Arizona, and
Lower California, as well as the Natchez Indians of the Lower
Mississippi Valley. Most of the North American Indian tribes lived in
villages of wigwams and had a primitive form of government. In each
village there was a communal, or “long,” house, in which clan business
was transacted. In a few cases this “long” house gave shelter to a whole
tribe. These Indians, except among the Southern tribes mentioned below,
were chiefly in what is called the hunter and fisher state, although
they frequently practiced a rude form of agriculture. Sometimes,
however, as in the case of the Digger Indians, they subsisted mainly on
roots.[1]
[Illustration: INSCRIPTION ROCK, NEW MEXICO.]
=3. The Principal Indian Tribes.=—Of the North American Indians with
whom our own forefathers came chiefly in contact, there were four
principal groups, commonly known as the Algonquins, the Iroquois, the
Southern Indians, and the Dakotahs. The Algonquins were the most
numerous, although it is doubtful if at any time they numbered ninety
thousand. Ranging through the vast forests from Kentucky to Hudson Bay
and from the Mississippi to the Atlantic, they were naturally in
frequent conflict with the whites. Opposed to these, and wedged into the
very center of their territory, were the fierce Iroquois, the craftiest
of their race, whose tribal names—Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas, Cayugas,
and Senecas—are inseparably connected with rivers and lakes in the
State of New York. They formed a loose confederacy, called by the whites
the “Five Nations.”[2] The Southern Indians showed a milder disposition
and were given to agriculture and rude manufactures. Of these the Creeks
were the most advanced; beneath them in point of civilization were the
Cherokees, Chickasaws, Choctaws, and Seminoles.[3] West of the
Mississippi ranged the wandering Dakotahs or Sioux, fierce fighters,
whose descendants have given trouble down to our own day. Of the
inferior tribes living in the extreme north of the continent, we need
take no special account.
PRE-COLUMBIAN DISCOVERERS.
[Illustration: CLIFF DWELLINGS ON THE
RIO MANCOS.]
[Illustration: OLD MILL AT NEWPORT, long
erroneously supposed to have been
built by the Northmen.]
[Illustration: LONG HOUSE OF THE IROQUOIS.]
=4. The Northmen.=—While Columbus and his followers were the real
discoverers of America in the sense that they first made it generally
known to Europe, it is practically certain that they were not the first
Europeans to set foot on the new continent. It is possible that seamen
from France and England preceded Columbus, but there is much better
reason to believe that Scandinavians from Iceland, having first
discovered Greenland, visited the North American mainland as early as
the year 1000. Evidence to this effect is found in the so-called Sagas
of the Northmen, poetic chronicles based on tradition and dating from
about two centuries after the events which they recorded. According to
these stories, navigators were driven south from Greenland to a strange
shore about the year 985. Fourteen years later, Leif, son of Eric the
Red, having introduced Christianity from Norway into Iceland and
Greenland, visited the newly discovered land, with thirty-five
companions. They wintered in a country which, from its abundance of wild
grape vines, they called Vinland, built some houses, and then returned
to Greenland with a cargo of timber. Several other voyages were made
thither and a temporary colony was established, the latest mention of a
voyage dating from about the middle of the fourteenth century. Such is
the story of the Sagas. The main features of the account are generally
held to be correct, but the location of the Northmen’s Vinland cannot be
determined, and no archæological remains have been found on the American
continent to corroborate the Sagas.[4]
[Illustration: NORTH PUEBLO OF TAOS.]
[Illustration: SPECIMEN OF SAGA MANUSCRIPT.]
[Illustration: THE DIGHTON ROCK IN MASSACHUSETTS,
long supposed to bear an inscription left by the Northmen.
The figures are now known to be Indian hieroglyphics.]
COLUMBUS AND THE SPANISH DISCOVERERS.
[Illustration: COLUMBUS.[6]]
=5. Columbus and the Indies.=—That Christopher Columbus[5] of Genoa is
entitled to the honor of being considered the real discoverer of America
is clearly proved by the fact that he was the first person who planned
to sail westward over the unknown ocean, and that he never faltered in
the prosecution of his heroic design. It is true that he made the
mistake of thinking he would come to India rather than to a new
continent, and that he underestimated the distance he would have to
sail; but such mistakes were natural in view of the lack of geographical
knowledge at that time. It was generally believed, by priest and layman
alike, that the earth was flat, and good Scripture warrant was produced
for the belief. Yet since the days of Aristotle a few scholars had
concluded, from the evidences furnished by eclipses and from other
reasons, that the earth was spherical in form. Columbus had obtained
this idea from some source and seems to have been fascinated by the
possibilities it opened. Oriental commerce, especially that from India,
was then of great consequence to Italian merchants; and if the recent
military successes of the Turks should close the overland routes to the
East, it was thought this commerce would be destroyed. But Columbus held
that, if the earth were round, India could be reached by sailing
westward, and thus trade could be carried on in spite of the Turks.
[Illustration: TOSCANELLI’S MAP (simplified)]
=6. Motives and Difficulties of Columbus.=—Columbus was urged on by
patriotism, desire of gain, missionary hopes of Christianizing distant
lands, and a natural enthusiasm for heroic enterprise. He corresponded
with Toscanelli, a learned Italian, who sent him letters and a map, but
underestimated greatly the distance to be traversed. This mistake was
fortunate, as Columbus would probably never have secured a hearing had
he proposed to take a voyage of ten thousand miles,—the actual distance
between Spain and the East Indies. As it was, for a long time he applied
in vain to princes and potentates—who alone could sustain the expenses
of such an expedition—for permission and means to make a voyage which
he believed to be about three thousand miles in length. The record of
his hopes and fears, his successes and reverses, reads like a heroic
poem. Fortunately for him, the Portuguese had been making voyages down
the African coast, with their eyes fixed on the Eastern trade, and the
Spaniards, strong through the recent union of Castile and Aragon and the
conquest of the Moorish kingdom of Granada, had been aroused to eager
rivalry in maritime enterprise. At the court of Ferdinand and Isabella,
the Spanish monarchs, Columbus eloquently pleaded his cause. Success at
last crowned his efforts. Under the patronage of Isabella he sailed from
the port of Palos, with a fleet of three vessels, on the 3d of August,
1492.
[Illustration: SHIPS OF THE TIME OF COLUMBUS.]
=7. Voyages of Columbus.=—Within a month the adventurers had left the
Canaries and were traversing the unknown ocean. As the days went by the
crews became restless, but the dauntless resolution of Columbus
prevented mutiny. Finally, after a fortunate change of course to the
southwest, the great navigator saw a light ahead, on the evening of
October 11, and the following morning he found that an island had been
reached. It was probably Watling’s Island, one of the Bahama group,
though the identity of the landing place has been a matter of much
dispute.[7] On this first voyage Columbus coasted along the northern
side of Cuba, and also discovered the island now known as Hayti. Then,
after losing his largest ship and suffering many other trials, he
returned to Spain, confident that he had reached islands off the coast
of India. The Spanish sovereigns received him with great respect and
pomp, and soon sent him back to take possession of his discoveries in
the name of Spain. Unfortunately, there was little or no wealth to be
obtained from the new possessions except by capable colonists, and
Columbus was not fitted to govern dependencies. So great did the
opposition to him become that he was arrested some years later, on
account of charges of extortion and cruelty brought by his followers,
and was sent to Spain in irons. He was soon released, however, and
undertook his fourth and last voyage. The results of his last three
expeditions were not important. He succeeded in exploring more of Cuba,
and in discovering Jamaica. He reached also the mouth of the Orinoco,
and was much puzzled to account for its size, which was too great for an
island river. On his last voyage he coasted the shores of Central
America, in a vain search for a waterway to India. He found no strait,
but did find an isthmus; and when he heard reports of a vast body of
water lying on the other side of the land, he thought that it must be
the Indian Ocean. Thus he was confirmed in his error with regard to the
nearness of India, and doubtless cherished his delusion to his death.
After his fourth voyage he returned to Spain, and died there in 1506, in
poverty and obscurity.
[Illustration: SEBASTIAN CABOT.]
=8. The Cabots and the English Title.=—Almost immediately after
Columbus’s first voyage, Pope Alexander VI. issued a bull dividing the
non-Christian portion of the world into two parts: Spain to have all
that she might discover west of a line to be drawn one hundred leagues
west of the Azores; and Portugal all that she might discover east of it.
In the following year the rival nations fixed the line at three hundred
and seventy leagues west of the Cape Verde Islands. Aroused by these
events, Henry VII. of England, who was laying the foundations of Tudor
greatness, granted a license of exploration to John Cabot, an Italian
then living in Bristol. This seaman landed somewhere near the mouth of
the St. Lawrence River, in 1497. Accounts of the voyage are
unsatisfactory; and those of the voyage of 1498, supposed to have been
made under the command of Cabot’s son Sebastian,[8] are still more
vague. That the Cabots did make northerly discoveries on which the
English based their right to colonize North America is, however, quite
certain.
=9. Other Successors of Columbus.=—The discovery of the West Indies, as
the new islands were named in consequence of Columbus’s mistake,
naturally gave a great impetus to exploration. In 1497–98 the Portuguese
under Vasco da Gama rounded the Cape of Good Hope and reached the real
India, the goal of their desires. In the last year of the same century
another Portuguese, Gaspar Cortereal, explored a good deal of the North
American coast, and in a few years Newfoundland was much frequented by
fishermen, especially from France and England.[9] Little was known,
however, about the geography of the new world. Many strange errors were
current respecting it, and some years passed before it was given a name.
One of the errors was that North America was a projection of Asia, which
was not disproved until 1728, when the Russian navigator Vitus Bering
sailed from the Pacific into the Arctic Ocean. This error had much to do
with the delay in furnishing the two continents with names. By a curious
chain of circumstances, too, the name finally settled upon did not do
honor to Columbus.
[Illustration: AMERICUS VESPUCIUS.]
=10. The Name “America.”=—Among the early successors of this great
explorer was another Italian, Amerigo Vespucci, or, in the Latin form
then current, Americas Vespucius.[10] Little is known of him or his
voyages, but it is clear that he was one of the first Europeans after
Columbus to visit the northern coast of South America, and that in 1504
he wrote an account of his adventures. This account circulated as far as
the college town of St. Dié in the Vosges Mountains, and was there
printed with an introduction by one of the professors, Martin
Waldseemüller by name, who proposed that, since now a fourth division of
the earth’s inhabited surface must be named, this should be known as
America, in honor of Americus Vespucius, who was supposed to have
discovered it. There appears to have been no intention to slight
Columbus, whose voyage to the Orinoco was probably not widely known. At
any rate, the suggestion was followed, first as regards South America,
later with regard to both continents.
[Illustration: BALBOA.]
=11. Balboa’s Discovery of the Pacific.=—Geographical knowledge was
much advanced by the discovery of the Pacific Ocean by Vasco Nuñez de
Balboa[11] in 1513. This brave Spaniard had sought the New World for the
sake of wealth, but had met with many difficulties. Lured by tales told
by the natives of Panama of a large ocean and lands abounding in gold
beyond the mountains, he made his way to the top of the Cordilleras, and
thence beheld a great sea to the south of him, which he called the South
Sea, a name long retained by English writers. It is the irony of fate
that in the best-known reference in English literature to this
discovery,—in the famous sonnet by Keats,—the honor of making it
should have been transferred to Cortez, who had celebrity enough of his
own.
[Illustration: MAGELLAN.]
=12. The Voyage of Magellan.=—The name Pacific was given to the great
ocean by the most glorious of Columbus’s successors, the Portuguese
Fernãdo de Magalhães,[12] better known as Magellan. In 1519, while in
the service of Spain, he followed the coast of South America, hoping to
find a strait that might lead into the South Sea. Late in the next year
he discovered the strait that bears his name, and sailed into the great
ocean to which he gave the name Pacific, on account of its peaceful
character. This name was ironical so far as his own career was
concerned; for one of his five crews mutinied, one ship was cast away
and another abandoned him, and he himself was killed in an encounter
with the natives of the Philippine Islands. But he had won a glorious
immortality, although it was really the survivors of his crews that
finally made their way around the Cape of Good Hope and completed the
first circumnavigation of the globe.
[Illustration: PONCE DE LEON.]
[Illustration: DE SOTO.]
=13. Spanish Conquests.=—Meanwhile a Spaniard, Ponce de Leon,[13] had
discovered Florida in 1512 and had found the perfect climate, but not
the gold and silver and fountain of youth he sought. His attempt nine
years later to establish a colony there was a complete failure. Success
attended, however, the expedition of Hernando Cortez for the conquest of
Mexico (1519–1521), and similar good fortune befell that of Francisco
Pizarro for the subversion of Peru (1532). The New World was rapidly
alluring the Spaniards, who made many explorations. For example, Cabeza
de Vaca, an officer in Panfilo de Narvaez’s unfortunate expedition to
the Gulf coast, wandered in the interior regions a long while, and
finally emerged on the Mexican border, with marvelous tales of what he
had seen and heard (1536). These tales caused the Viceroy of Mexico,
Mendoza, to send a certain friar to investigate them; and, upon the
facts and the numerous errors contained in the friar’s report, hopes
were founded that induced the sending out of a large force under
Francisco Vasquez Coronado (1540–1542). This expedition conquered many
pueblo villages of the Southwest, but obtained no gold or silver, and,
after struggling as far north as Kansas, ended in a disconsolate
retreat. At about the same time another expedition was moving westward
from Florida through the Gulf region, under the command of Hernando de
Soto (1539–1542). This gallant man pushed northwest across the mountains
and discovered the Tennessee River, and later the Mississippi; but he
died soon after, and his followers abandoned their enterprise. Thus by
the middle of the century no permanent Spanish settlement had been made
in what is now the United States. Nor was Spain long to have things her
own way.
THE FRENCH EXPLORERS.
[Illustration: JACQUES CARTIER.]
=14. French Discoveries.=—As we have seen, French fishermen were among
the first to reach Newfoundland. A little later the voyage of Giovanni
da Verrazano, a native of Florence, under commission of Francis I.,
showed the dawning interest in the New World taken by the French court.
In 1524 Verrazano explored much of the Northern coast as far as
Newfoundland. In 1534 and 1535 Jacques Cartier[14] discovered Prince
Edward Island, sailed up the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and penetrated the
great river as far as the present site of Montreal, fancying most of the
time that he was rapidly nearing China.[15] A few years later he came
again, bringing colonists with him; but the enterprise did not succeed,
and in consequence was soon abandoned.
=15. Arrival of Huguenots.=—France was now torn with civil and
religious discord, and, as a result, Admiral Coligny, the great leader
of the Huguenots, determined to found a place of refuge for his
co-religionists in a more tempting part of America than Canada.
Accordingly, in 1562, Jean Ribaut, under his orders, sailed for the
Southern coast and discovered the present St. John’s River in Florida.
He left a small colony on Port Royal Sound, but it was soon scattered.
Two years later, René de Laudonnière established another settlement on
the St. John’s, but the colonists were disorderly. Some of them mutinied
and attempted to plunder the Spaniards in the West Indies. Learning thus
of the existence of the French settlement, the Spaniards under Menendez
organized a strong expedition against it. The French had meanwhile been
reënforced by a fleet under Ribaut and by Sir John Hawkins, the English
slave-trader and famous fighter. But in spite of these reënforcements
the French did not use their opportunities, and their vessels were soon
scattered by a storm. Then Menendez, who had just established himself at
St. Augustine (1565), destroyed the French fort and killed or captured
nearly all the Frenchmen at that time in Florida. St. Augustine, the
oldest town in the United States, still stands to record this savage
warfare. A little later a French soldier, Dominic de Gourges, partly
avenged his countrymen; but St. Augustine was not taken, and the French
crown relinquished all claims to Florida.
[Illustration: CHAMPLAIN.]
=16. Champlain.=—In the progressive reign of Henry IV. of France,
attention was once more paid to Canada. After a colony had failed on the
Isle of Sable, near Nova Scotia, and another had all but come to grief
in Nova Scotia proper, Samuel de Champlain[16] succeeded in establishing
a permanent post at Quebec in 1608. In a few years, owing to the zeal of
the Jesuit missionaries and the enterprise of the fur-traders, the
French had obtained a firm grip upon Canada and were rapidly pushing
inland.
THE ENGLISH EXPLORERS.
[Illustration: SIR FRANCIS DRAKE.]
=17. English Explorations during the Reign of Elizabeth.=—The English,
unlike the French, were at first content with their fisheries in
Newfoundland; and it was not until after 1570 that they seriously took
part in the affairs of America. Their tardiness was probably at first
due to the marriage of Henry VIII. with a Spanish princess, then to
their own internal troubles in consequence of the Pope’s condemnation of
Henry’s conduct. Finally, in the reign of Elizabeth, a love of
geographical knowledge and discovery having sprung up, they turned their
attention to exploring for a northwest passage to the East. Martin
Frobisher made three voyages (1576–1578), and sought gold in Labrador.
Francis Drake,[17] in his voyage round the world (1577–1580), explored
part of the Pacific coast of the present United States. Sir Humphrey
Gilbert and his half-brother, Sir Walter Raleigh,[18] wished to colonize
as well as explore, and after one disastrous attempt Gilbert took
possession of Newfoundland in the name of Queen Elizabeth. He was lost
on the return voyage, but left behind him an undying reputation for
courage and piety.[19]
[Illustration: SIR WALTER RALEIGH.]
=18. Raleigh’s Colonies.=—Raleigh continued the work of Gilbert by
organizing expeditions, in which he took, however, no personal part. The
first exploration was made in 1584 by Philip Amadas and Arthur Barlowe.
These two leaders visited the coast of North Carolina, and returned
bringing favorable accounts of the region, which was named Virginia,
after the Virgin Queen. The next year Raleigh fitted out seven ships,
and a colony was established on Roanoke Island. This in spite of several
reënforcements finally proved a failure, the last colonists having
disappeared in a manner never accounted for.[20] Meanwhile the defeat of
the Spanish Armada off the coast of England had rendered it quite
certain that with England’s sea power established, she would be able to
colonize the northern parts of America without great fear of
molestation.
SUMMARY OF RESULTS.
=19. Colonization in the Sixteenth Century.=—As we have just seen,
Spain, France, and England made many efforts during the sixteenth
century to obtain permanent possessions in the New World. Spain
succeeded in Mexico and Peru, and made a mere beginning in Florida.
France did not really get a foothold in Canada until the first decade of
the next century, and this was likewise the case with the English in
Virginia. All three nations had too many things to disturb them at home
to be able to put forth their full strength in establishing their claims
to the new country. The work of exploration in consequence was hazardous
and slow. Then, again, the precise value of the possessions they were
striving for was not understood. Men chiefly sought the precious metals,
and in the race for these Spain came off victor. But to obtain them she
sacrificed the lives of the helpless natives and of imported negro
slaves, and thus never laid the foundations for successful, thriving
colonies. She injured herself, too, by accustoming her own people to the
idea that the mother country ought to be supported by her colonies, and
that labor was beneath a Spaniard of good blood.
=20. Changes in the Theory of Colonization.=—France and England, also,
sought for gold and silver, but found none. The lands they occupied
could be made productive, but not by the ne’er-do-well adventurers who
first came out. When, however, fish and furs, and, later on, tobacco,
became far more profitable than the metals would have been, the
character of both English and French colonists gradually improved. The
value of the new possessions was not to be perceived fully, however,
until the eighteenth century, when they played a part in all the
important European wars. Nor even then did statesmen at home realize
that the mother country’s interests were best served by keeping her
colonists prosperous. A colony was at first viewed merely as a source of
revenue, and in some cases even as a dumping-ground for criminals. It is
only of late that colonies have figured as outlets for superfluous
population and as bases for extending commercial operations.
* * * * *
REFERENCES.—GENERAL WORKS which should be consulted in
connection with each of the five chapters of Part I. are: J.
Winsor, _Narrative and Critical History of America_ (contains
special monographs of great value); G. Bancroft, _History of the
United States_ (revised edition); R. Hildreth, _History of the
United States_; J. A. Doyle, _The English in America_; R. G.
Thwaites, _The Colonies_, chaps. i.–iii. (“Epochs of American
History”); G. P. Fisher, _The Colonial Era_ (“American History
Series”).
SPECIAL WORKS: J. Fiske, _Discovery of America_; E. J. Payne,
_History of the New World called America_; W. H. Prescott,
_Conquest of Mexico_ and _Conquest of Peru_; E. Eggleston, _The
Beginners of a Nation_; J. Winsor, _Christopher Columbus_; also
biographies of Columbus by Washington Irving, C. K. Adams, and
C. R. Markham; W. Irving, _Companions of Columbus_; A. Helps,
_Spanish Conquest of America_; F. Parkman, _Pioneers of France_;
J. Winsor, _From Cartier to Frontenac_; E. J. Payne, _Voyages of
the Elizabethan Seamen_ (also various biographies of Drake,
Raleigh, etc.); H. H. Bancroft, _The Pacific States_, Vol.
XVIII.
On the Indians, see Fiske and Payne, as above, and the writings
of L. H. Morgan and A. F. Bandelier. For full bibliographies,
consult Channing and Hart’s _Guide to American History_. For
illustrative material, consult _Old South Leaflets_ and Hart’s
_American History told by Contemporaries_. The first voyage of
Columbus is described in Cooper’s _Mercedes of Castile_;
Elizabethan maritime enterprise, in C. Kingsley’s _Westward Ho!_
-----
[1] For a brief but scientific account of the chief characteristics of
the aborigines, see article, “Indians,” by D. G. Brinton and J. W.
Powell, in _Johnson’s Universal Cyclopædia_.
[2] They became the “Six Nations” after they were joined by the
Tuscaroras of North Carolina.
[3] “Seminoles” means “wanderers”; the tribe was made up of refugees
from other tribes, notably from the Creeks.
[4] The remains of the old mill at Newport, Rhode Island, and certain
inscriptions have at one time and another been held to date from the
visits of the Northmen; but archæologists have not assented to these
views.
[5] Born at Genoa, Italy, about 1436; died, 1506. Early became a maker
of maps and charts; about 1470 went to Lisbon, whence he sailed to
Guinea, and probably to Iceland; studied the matter of circumnavigating
the globe, and planned the project of reaching the East Indies by
sailing in a westerly direction; failing to procure aid in Portugal,
went to Spain, where he finally received help from the Spanish court,
immediately after the fall of Granada in 1492; set out with three
vessels, August 3, 1492; landed, October 12; discovered Cuba and Hayti,
and reached home in March, 1493; sailed again in the autumn of 1493, and
remained till 1496; made a third voyage, 1498; was imprisoned on charges
of cruelty, and taken to Spain in chains; was soon released, and made
his fourth and last voyage in 1502.
[6] No portrait of Columbus has any claim to authenticity. There is no
evidence that his likeness was drawn or painted by anyone who ever saw
him.
[7] The diary of Columbus, studied in connection with the possible
landing places in the West Indies, shows that the vessels probably
floated past Watling’s Island in the night of October 11, and that a
landing was made the next morning on the west side of the island.
[8] Born about 1474, in Venice or Bristol. Probably accompanied his
father John in the latter’s first voyage to America in 1497, and
succeeded him in command of the second expedition, in 1498.
[9] In consequence of these discoveries fishing rights on the island
have been held by the French to our day.
[10] Born in Florence, 1451; died, 1512. After becoming an expert
astronomer and map-maker, made four voyages to America, two in the
Spanish and two in the Portuguese service. To his Brazilian discoveries
he gave the name _Mundus Novus_, or New World.
[11] Born in Spain, 1475; died, 1517. Migrated to Hayti in 1500, and in
1510 accompanied Enciso in an expedition to Darien; quarreled with
Enciso and obtained the chief command of the party; from the summit of a
mountain discovered the Pacific, September 25, 1513; was afterward
accused of treasonable designs and put to death.
[12] Born in Portugal, about 1470; died, 1521. Served in the East Indies
from 1505 to 1512; renounced allegiance to Portugal and went to Seville,
1517; conceived the plan of reaching the East Indies by a voyage south
of South America; in 1519 was given by Charles V. a squadron of five
ships, with two hundred and sixty-five men; explored the coast of South
America, and passed the straits which have since borne his name,
November 28, 1520; discovered and named the Ladrones (Robber) Islands;
discovered the Philippine Islands, where, with eight of his men, he was
killed.
[13] Born, 1460; died, 1521. Spanish explorer, who probably accompanied
Columbus on his second voyage. He was governor of eastern Hayti and
conqueror of Porto Rico. In 1512 he started in search of the fountain of
perpetual youth, and landed in Florida, near St. Augustine. In 1521 he
returned, but lost most of his force. Spanish claims to Florida were
based on these discoveries.
[14] Born at St. Malo, France, 1494; died, 1554. Explored the American
coast and ascended the St. Lawrence River to Montreal, 1535; returned to
France, but revisited Canada in 1541, and explored the rapids above
Montreal. For these explorations, which were the basis of the French
claims to Canada, Cartier was ennobled by the king of France.
[15] It is said that one of Cartier’s men, on seeing the foaming water
above Montreal, exclaimed, “La Chine!” (China), and that in consequence
the name “La Chine” has ever since been applied to the rapids.
[16] Born, 1567; died, 1635. In 1599 sailed from his home in France to
the West Indies, whence he proceeded to Mexico, and on his return
crossed the Isthmus of Panama, where he conceived the idea of a ship
canal; from 1603 to 1604 explored the St. Lawrence River; founded Quebec
in 1608; discovered the lake that bears his name in 1609, and Lake Huron
in 1615. He was one of the most cultured and gallant of the early
explorers.
[17] Born in 1546; died, 1596. English navigator, who reached Mexico in
1567 and South America in 1572; explored the Pacific coast from 1578 to
1579, and returned to England the next year, after having
circumnavigated the globe.
[18] Born, 1552; died, 1618. English navigator, who, after serving with
the French Huguenots in the Netherlands, and in Ireland, led an
unsuccessful expedition to colonize America in 1579; attempted to
organize others with similar results; was confined in the Tower for
several years after 1603; made an unsuccessful voyage to Guiana; was
rearrested on his return, and executed.
[19] It was Gilbert who told his companions not to fear, since heaven
was as near by sea as by land.
[20] It is an interesting fact that the first English child born on
American soil was Virginia Dare, granddaughter of John White, governor
of this colony.
CHAPTER II.
=THE FIRST PLANTATIONS AND COLONIES, 1607–1630.=
THE SETTLEMENT OF VIRGINIA.
=21. The Virginia Company.=—At the beginning of the seventeenth century
England undertook in earnest to plant colonies in North America. Her
only important rival was France. Efforts were first directed toward the
vast unoccupied stretch of country between Canada and Florida. The upper
part of this region was explored, with favorable results, by Bartholomew
Gosnold in 1602, by Martin Pring in 1603, and by George Weymouth in
1605. These enterprises were encouraged by the new king, James I., and
Raleigh was soon out of favor. The work of colonization required
coöperation; and the example of the Muscovite and East India companies
led certain important citizens to obtain a charter authorizing them, as
the Virginia Company, to promote and govern colonies in the unsettled
region. It was a favorable time for such an undertaking, since changes
in agricultural methods and other economic causes had created a spirit
of unrest and filled England with men eager for employment. Besides, the
passion for discovery and the energy that marked Elizabeth’s reign had
by no means died out, and fortune seemed beckoning from the new shores.
=22. The Sub-companies.=—The Virginia Company’s charter covered a
region extending from the thirty-fourth to the forty-fifth degree of
north latitude. This was not to be controlled by one set of men,
however, for there were two sub-companies, one consisting of the charter
members living in or near London, and the other of those living in or
near Plymouth. The Londoners could colonize from the thirty-fourth to
the thirty-eighth degree; the Plymouth people from the forty-first to
the forty-fifth, while the intervening space was left to whichever
company should first colonize it, with the proviso that neither company
should settle within one hundred miles of the other. This idea of
competition between the companies led to nothing, and indeed the whole
scheme of the charter was a cumbrous one that promised little permanent
success.
[Illustration: RUINS OF THE OLD
CHURCH AT JAMESTOWN.]
=23. The Settlement at Jamestown.=—In 1607 both sub-companies began
operations. The Plymouth men sent a fleet to the coast of the present
state of Maine, but the colony they tried to plant was a failure. The
London Company was more fortunate. Their colonists reached Chesapeake
Bay in the spring, and settled about fifty miles above the mouth of a
large river, since then known as the James, in honor of the English
king. They called their new settlement Jamestown, and at once began to
build huts and fortifications.
=24. Captain John Smith.=[21]—Their leading spirit was Captain John
Smith, an adventurous and able man, who in spite of jealousies put
himself at the head of affairs and saved the colony. The men sent out
were mainly gentlemen adventurers seeking to mend their fortunes, and
even some of the real workers followed callings not required in the
wilderness. There was consequently much bickering, and soon a scarcity
of provisions caused great suffering. The site of the town proved
unhealthy, and the Indians encountered had to be watched. Altogether the
situation was a wretched one, and but for the energy of Smith and a few
others, Christopher Newport, the captain of the fleet, who had gone back
to England for supplies, might have found few vestiges of a settlement
on his return in 1609. Newport brought stores, but also a number of
undesirable colonists. He speedily sailed back to England with a cargo
of shining earth, which did not yield the gold it promised to credulous
eyes. Smith besought the Company to send out good workmen to cultivate
the rich soil; and after a while the promoters of the colony learned not
to expect vast discoveries of gold and silver. In October, 1609, owing
to an accident to his eyes, Smith left the colony, never to return.
[Illustration: JOHN SMITH.]
=25. Smith’s Character.=—Smith’s relations with Virginia have been the
subject of much hostile criticism. Discrepancies have been found between
his earlier and his later accounts of his exploits, and some historians
have been led to regard him as little more than a braggart. This is an
untenable view. His management of the refractory colonists, his dealings
with the Indian chief Powhatan, his wise and manly remonstrances with
the London Company,—all go to show that he was an able and unselfish
leader to whom the life of the struggling settlement was mainly due. On
the other hand, there can be little doubt, save in the minds of his
partisans, that he frequently embellished his accounts of his
adventures, and that he is not the most reliable of historians. It is
not at all impossible that he was really saved by Pocahontas,[22] yet
the story may be as mythical as the coat of arms granted to him by the
king of Hungary.
[Illustration: POCAHONTAS.]
=26. Annulling of the Virginia Company’s Charter.=—In 1609, the year of
Smith’s departure, King James gave the Virginia Company a new charter,
which defined the limits of its territory in a very vague way and
increased its power over its colonists. In 1612 he gave another charter,
which took in the Bermuda Islands and allowed the shareholders of the
Company to hold general meetings in London. Twelve years later, when the
king’s Puritan opponents had got control of these meetings and used them
for political purposes, he caused the charter to be annulled by a decree
of court, which was a legal though not a justifiable act. The records of
the Company were preserved in a romantic way,[23] and are now in the
possession of the government at Washington.
=27. Growth of Virginia.=—Meanwhile the colony had had various ups and
downs under several governors,—Lord Delaware, Sir Thomas Dale, the
tyrannical Samuel Argall, Sir George Yeardley, and Sir Francis
Wyatt,—but had on the whole become firmly established. Dale was strict,
but successful in controlling the rougher elements; he also encouraged
the policy of allowing settlers to become individual proprietors of
land. Argall was speedily recalled for his misconduct. Liberal
sentiments then prevailed in the colony, and its inhabitants were
allowed, during Yeardley’s administration, to hold a yearly
representative assembly, or legislature (1619), the first of its kind in
America. This long step toward self-government, together with the
increasing importance of the tobacco crop, gave Virginia a decided
impetus, which the contemporaneous introduction of slavery, in the
persons of twenty blacks landed and sold at Jamestown by a Dutch ship in
1619, did not at first affect. The presence of white slaves in the
persons of indentured servants—a class recruited from convicts,
vagabonds, and kidnapped children—produced some confusion. But
colonists of position and means soon began to exert an influence opposed
to disorder, and through Sir Francis Wyatt the Company promised to stand
by its grant of free institutions.
=28. Charles I. and the Virginia Burgesses.=—In 1622 the colonists
endured a loss of three hundred settlers, from an attack by the Indians
whom they had maltreated. The collapse of the Company (1624) made
Virginia a crown colony, dependent on the king, who was succeeded the
next year (1625) by his son, Charles I. Charles, needing money in order
to be able to govern without his Parliament, tried to get a profit out
of a monopoly of the tobacco trade, but the colonial assembly, or
Burgesses, as they were called, withstood him (1629). The convening of
this assembly to discuss such a matter was an important precedent in the
government of the crown colonies; but the assembly, although it could
resist the king’s demand, could not prevent a royal governor like Sir
John Harvey from making himself obnoxious.[24]
THE SETTLEMENT OF NEW YORK.
[Illustration: HENRY HUDSON.]
=29. Hudson and New Amsterdam.=—In the autumn of 1609 Henry Hudson,[25]
an English seaman employed by the Dutch East India Company, sailed up
the river now called by his name, as far as the site of Albany. He was
searching for a northwest passage to India; he found instead a good
opportunity to trade with the red men, which the Dutch afterward
cultivated. By 1615 houses were built on the site of Albany and of the
present New York. The fur trade of New Netherland, as the region was
named, was turned over to a corporation organized for that purpose,
called the New Netherland Company. Politically no steps were taken at
first against the English title to the country. In 1621 the Dutch West
India Company took up the rôle of the New Netherland Company, and three
years later sent over a number of colonists. These settled mainly near
Albany; but there were other centers of population, all of which did a
thriving fur trade with the Indians.
=30. Organization of the Dutch Colony.=—In 1626 Peter Minuit, director
for the Dutch West India Company, purchased the Island of Manhattan from
the Indians for a trifling amount (about twenty-five dollars), and made
the town of New Amsterdam, afterward New York, the center of government.
In 1629 the Company obtained a new charter and proceeded to develop a
semi-feudal system of land tenure among the colonists. Individuals,
styled “Patroons” (patrons), were allowed to buy tracts of land from the
Indians and to settle colonists upon them. For every colony of fifty
persons the Patroon was granted a large tract for himself; and as he was
given political and judicial power over his colonists, New Netherland
was soon in the hands of a powerful landed aristocracy, some families of
which have retained a certain prestige down to the present time.
[Illustration: NEW AMSTERDAM.]
THE PILGRIMS AT PLYMOUTH.
=31. The Plymouth Colony.=—The London Company and the Dutch West India
Company had now established promising colonies, but the Plymouth Company
had done nothing since their unsuccessful attempt in 1607. Seven years
later, Captain John Smith had made a voyage along the northern coast and
given the region the name of New England. Other voyages added to
geographical knowledge and developed the fisheries, but the more
southerly colonies for some time attracted all intending settlers, and
the reorganized Plymouth Company of 1620 might have fared poorly had not
accident favored them. This accident was nothing less than the landing
of the Pilgrim Fathers at Plymouth Rock instead of somewhere within the
jurisdiction of the London Company, as they at first intended.
=32. The Pilgrims in Holland.=—The causes that led the Pilgrims to the
New World were briefly as follows. There were large numbers of English
Protestants who thought that the Established Church of England had not
sufficiently broken away from the Church of Rome, especially in regard
to the forms of worship. Such dissatisfied Protestants were called
Puritans, and those of their number who refused to commune with the
Church of England were further known as Dissenters. Those Dissenters who
were ruled by elders, according to the system of Calvin and Knox, were
known as Presbyterians. Such as desired each congregation to be
independent were called Separatists, or Brownists, or Independents. The
Pilgrim Fathers were Separatists who, in order to escape persecution,
had fled from the village of Scrooby to Holland. The emigrants, headed
by their pastor, John Robinson, and their elder, William Brewster,
numbered about one hundred. Settling first at Amsterdam, then at Leyden,
they were joined by other refugees, and lived peacefully by their
labors.
=33. Movement of Pilgrims to America.=—These Pilgrims naturally did not
wish their children to become Dutchmen; so their minds turned to
America. Securing a grant of land from the London Company and financial
aid from London capitalists who became partners in the enterprise, they
collected their effects and sailed to their new home in the
_Mayflower_.[26] They sighted Cape Cod on November 9, 1620. The captain,
for some reason, would not sail farther southward; so after exploring
the coast, the emigrants, who had already formed themselves into a body
politic under a very liberal written agreement, landed at Plymouth
(December 21, 1620).
=34. Experiences of the Pilgrims.=—Although the winter was mild, the
colonists had much difficulty in obtaining shelter and food, and great
loss of life was the result, Deacon John Carver, the first governor,
being among the victims. William Bradford, one of the finest characters
in our history, succeeded him as governor. His courage and that of his
people, who believed firmly that they had the support of God, enabled
the colony to pull through the crisis. Huts and a fort were built, land
was cleared, and provisions and fuel laid in for the next winter. In
November, 1621, fifty more of the Leyden people arrived. These were a
burden to the colonists for a time, since the supply of food was small;
and distribution was made, as at Jamestown, from the common stock.
Settlers continued to be sent out by the London partners, but as a rule
they came empty handed.
[Illustration: MILES STANDISH.]
=35. Success of the Pilgrims.=—The colony nevertheless flourished under
a patent it had obtained from the Plymouth Company. It owed much of its
success to Bradford, who was often elected to the governorship, and to
Captain Miles Standish, a brave soldier, not a Separatist, who was
especially useful in managing the Indians. Various neighboring
settlements of Englishmen who ridiculed the strict customs of the
Pilgrims could not be easily dealt with; but finally the chief
offenders, Thomas Morton and his associates at Merrymount, who had
furnished the Indians with firearms, were put down with a stern hand.
Meanwhile the communal system was abandoned for individual allotments of
land. At about the same time (1627) the colonists purchased the share of
the London capitalists in the enterprise.
=36. Government of the Pilgrims.=—They governed themselves at first by
a primary assembly, then by a general court composed of two delegates
from each township, elected by popular vote, together with the governor
and representatives, called assistants. In 1636 a special code of laws
was adopted; but on the whole the government remained as simple as were
the habits of the God-fearing, thrifty people, who in many ways set an
example of steadiness and perseverance to all the other colonists. It
was, however, a very small settlement, and after various failures to
secure its perpetuation through a royal charter, it was finally merged,
in 1691, with Massachusetts[27] (§ 60).
THE SETTLEMENT OF MASSACHUSETTS.
[Illustration: JOHN ENDICOTT.]
=37. The Puritans and the Founding of Massachusetts.=—In 1623 some
merchants of Dorchester, England, sent out a colony to the coast of
Maine, which for some reason was diverted to the site of the present
Gloucester in Massachusetts. Three years later the colony was almost
abandoned; but John White, the Puritan rector of Trinity Church,
Dorchester, fearing the aggressions of the Crown in ecclesiastical
matters, advised the remaining settlers to continue at Salem, whither
they had migrated, and immediately laid plans in England for planting a
permanent colony. Two years later a patent was obtained from the
Plymouth Company for a strip of coast land, and John Endicott[28] led
sixty persons to Salem. In 1629 the owners of the patent, who still
lived in England, were organized as a Company and given a charter by the
king. This charter provided for popular election of the governor and
other officers, for a “general court,” or assembly, as well as for the
passage of laws not conflicting with those of England.
[Illustration: JOHN WINTHROP.]
=38. Government of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay.=—The new “Company
of the Massachusetts Bay in New England” was ostensibly to engage in
trade, but in reality its founders intended to form a religious
commonwealth. This could be easily done, since somehow or other no
proviso that the Company should have its headquarters in England was
inserted in the charter. Thus it was possible to transport the Company
bodily to New England, and this a number of prominent Puritans, at a
meeting held at Cambridge in 1629, agreed to do. There was to be no
violent separation from the Established Church except such as was caused
by distance; but uncongenial practices would be avoided, and the heavy
hand of Archbishop Laud, then the strenuous Primate of England, would
hardly reach across the sea. Thus many men of wealth and education,
whose conservatism would naturally have prevented their taking rash
steps in their opposition to the Crown, were led to join in the
Massachusetts enterprise. In April, 1630, eleven vessels sailed for
America, and by the end of the year about a thousand persons had
emigrated to the new colony and founded such towns as Boston,
Charlestown, and Watertown. They chose as governor a wealthy and highly
educated Suffolk gentleman, John Winthrop,[29] and under his able
administration the colony began a career of great prosperity and
importance.
* * * * *
REFERENCES.—GENERAL WORKS: To the list already given may be
added: Bryant and Gay, _Popular History of the United States_;
H. C. Lodge, _Short History of the English Colonies in America_;
Richard Frothingham, _Rise of the Republic of the United
States_.
SPECIAL WORKS: J. Fiske, _Beginnings of New England_; J. Fiske,
_Old Virginia and Her Neighbors_; J. G. Palfrey, _History of New
England_; W. B. Weeden, _Economic History of New England_; P. A.
Bruce. _Economic History of Virginia_; A. Brown, _Genesis of the
United States_; J. E. Cooke, _Virginia_ (“American
Commonwealths”); R. C. Winthrop, _Life and Letters of John
Winthrop_; E. Eggleston, _Transit of Civilization_.
Standard state and colonial histories, such as Hutchinson’s
_Massachusetts_ and Belknap’s _New Hampshire_, may also be used,
as well as biographies of colonial worthies. For documents,
consult Macdonald’s _Select Charters Illustrative of American
History, 1606–1775_. Illustrative specimens of the earliest
historical writings, such as Bradford’s “History of the Plymouth
Colony” and Winthrop’s “History of Massachusetts” will be found
in _Old South Leaflets_, Hart’s _American History told by
Contemporaries_, Stedman and Hutchinson’s _Library of American
Literature_, and Trent and Wells’ _Colonial Prose and Poetry_.
See Channing and Hart’s _Guide_. Many books relating to colonial
life and manners have been published recently, but Edward
Eggleston’s articles in the _Century Magazine_ (Vols.
III.–VIII.) will probably be sufficient for most purposes.
Longfellow’s _The Courtship of Miles Standish_ should be read in
connection with this chapter.
-----
[21] A noted English adventurer; born, 1579; died, 1632. Fought in the
Netherlands and against the Turks; joined the expedition to Virginia,
1606–07; on the voyage he was imprisoned, but after landing became
practical head of the colony; explored the Chesapeake Bay and its
tributaries; returned to England in 1609; explored the coast of New
England in 1614. He left voluminous and romantic accounts of his
exploits.
[22] Born about 1595; died, 1617. Daughter of the Indian chief Powhatan.
Smith reports that when he was taken prisoner by Powhatan and was about
to be put to death, Pocahontas placed her own head in the way of the
executioner’s club. This may have been a sign that she wished to have
Smith spared that he might become her husband. It is at least certain
that Smith was sent back to Jamestown, and that Pocahontas afterward
befriended the colonists. She was converted to Christianity in 1613, and
christened Rebecca; married John Rolfe in 1614; went to England in 1616,
and was presented at the court of James I. as Princess Lady Rebecca.
From her have descended many illustrious families of Virginia.
[23] The Privy Council ordered Nicholas Ferrar, deputy treasurer of the
Company, to hand over all books and papers of the corporation. Ferrar,
having in view the future justification of his colleagues and himself,
had the records copied and intrusted to the keeping of the Earl of
Southampton, the Company’s treasurer, who had been elected against the
wishes of King James. In 1667 the copy was sold to William Byrd of
Virginia. Then it passed to Rev. William Stith, one of the earliest
Virginian historians, then to Peyton Randolph, president of the
Continental Congress, then to Thomas Jefferson, and finally, in 1814, on
the sale of Jefferson’s library, to the government of the United States.
It is now in the Library of Congress and fills two folio volumes. See
Fiske’s _Old Virginia and Her Neighbors_, I. chap. vi.
[24] Harvey came to Virginia in 1629, but by 1635 he was ousted from
office by the Burgesses, and forced to go to England to appeal to the
king, who sent him back. Four years later, however, Charles, in order to
ingratiate himself with his tobacco-growing subjects, removed Harvey.
[25] One of the boldest of English navigators, born about 1580; explored
the coast of Greenland in 1607; in 1609 skirted the coast of Labrador,
and turning southward discovered the Hudson; in 1610 entered the strait
and bay which were named for him; but his crew mutinied and put him,
with seven companions, adrift. They were never heard of again.
[26] It is worth noting that the _Mayflower_ was not the only vessel of
this expedition as it was first arranged. The companion ship,
_Speedwell_, had an accident, and was obliged to return.
[27] It should be remembered that while the Pilgrims were Puritans, most
of the Puritans who settled in Massachusetts were far from being
Pilgrims. The importance attaching to the Pilgrims in American history
is due mainly to the priority of their landing and to the
picturesqueness of their early history.
[28] Born about 1588; died, 1665. In 1628 came to Massachusetts Bay as
governor, in which capacity he acted till the Company was established
and transferred to New England in 1630; from 1641 to 1644 and from 1651
to 1665 (except 1654) was deputy governor; in 1645 was appointed to the
highest command of the colonial army, and in 1658 was president of the
colonial commissioners.
[29] Born, 1588; died, 1649. Graduated at Trinity College, Cambridge;
opposed the Stuarts; was made governor of Massachusetts in 1629; arrived
at Salem and Boston in 1630; opposed the younger Vane, but was governor
again from 1637 to 1640, and a third time from 1646 to his death. His
journal “History,” and his letters are among the most valuable
historical documents of New England.
CHAPTER III.
=SPREAD OF PLANTATIONS, 1630–1689.=
THE SETTLEMENT AND GROWTH OF MARYLAND.
[Illustration: FIRST LORD BALTIMORE.]
=39. The First Lord Baltimore.=—Among the most important counsellors of
James I. was his Secretary of State, George Calvert, the first Lord
Baltimore,[30] who had been connected with both the London and Plymouth
Companies. His interest in colonial matters was such that he obtained a
patent for a colony in Newfoundland; but the enterprise failed in spite
of his personal efforts (1621). Later he tried to get a footing in
Virginia with some of his fellow-religionists (for he was a stanch Roman
Catholic); but the Protestant settlers would not have them (1629). Then
he secured a charter from King Charles I. for a tract which, although
north of the Potomac River, was within the original bounds of Virginia.
The new province was named Maryland, after Queen Henrietta Maria. Lord
Baltimore died before he could utilize his grant; but his son, Cecilius
Calvert, inherited it and became almost a feudal sovereign in the new
region. He could declare war, appoint all officers, and confer titles.
The freemen of the colony were to assist him in making laws which
required no supervision in England; and the colonists were granted an
unprecedented amount of religious liberty.
[Illustration: CECILIUS CALVERT,
SECOND LORD BALTIMORE.]
=40. The Growth of Maryland.=—In November, 1633, Leonard Calvert,
brother of Cecilius, crossed the ocean with two hundred colonists, and
the next year the town of St. Mary’s was founded. Trouble soon arose
with a prominent Virginian, William Claiborne, who had previously
established a colony on Kent Island, within Baltimore’s jurisdiction.
Claiborne was finally expelled, and the colonists, although many of them
were Protestants, settled down peacefully. Disputes, however, soon arose
with Cecilius Calvert over laws which the freemen insisted on passing;
but no serious trouble occurred until the Civil War broke out in
England. Then the Protestants gained the upper hand, and in 1645 Leonard
Calvert was forced to flee to Virginia. He soon returned, however, and
governed until his death, in 1647. After this, considerable confusion
ensued; and when Virginia had been secured for the Parliamentarians (§
42), Claiborne, who had cherished his grievances, compelled Governor
Stone of Maryland to renounce his allegiance to Lord Baltimore. When
Stone repudiated this agreement, Claiborne, who was a parliamentary
commissioner, with the aid of an armed force deposed him, and Maryland
passed under the control of the Protestants, who would not allow Roman
Catholics to vote or hold office. Cromwell, however, forbade
interference with the rights of the Second Lord Baltimore, and Stone,
the latter’s legal representative, endeavored to overthrow the Puritan
government of the colony, but was defeated in a battle at Providence in
1655. Two years later, Baltimore, through the favor of the English
Parliamentarians, recovered his proprietorship and obtained control of
Maryland, after a compromise had been made with the Puritan colonists
and their Virginia abettors. Greater privileges were granted to the
freemen, and there was a general religious toleration. Then followed the
excellent administration for fourteen years (1661–1675) of Charles
Calvert, the eldest son of Cecilius, who at the end of that period
became the third Lord Baltimore. During his governorship many Quakers
and foreign immigrants were attracted to the colony, which produced fine
crops, notably of tobacco.
=41. Revolts of Fendall and Coode.=—In 1681 there was a slight revolt,
led by a demagogue named Josias Fendall, who had previously been
treacherous to the proprietor. He was aided by John Coode, a retired
clergyman, and by some Virginians. The uprising was easily put down and
would not have made headway had not the people been disturbed by an
unpopular local law about the suffrage and by religious and economic
legislation in England (§ 43). Another revolt in 1689, led by Coode, was
more successful. But in two years the revolutionists were driven from
power, and Maryland was made a royal province, the proprietor becoming
merely a landlord.[31]
DEVELOPMENT OF VIRGINIA.
=42. Virginia under Berkeley’s First Administration.=—We have seen that
the royalist governor, Harvey, caused the Virginians at first to regret
the gentle rule of the London Company. In 1639, however, Sir Francis
Wyatt succeeded Harvey, and affairs began to improve. Three years later,
Sir William Berkeley began his long and checkered career as the king’s
representative. He was a brave, well-educated gentleman, but full of
passions and prejudices that often brought him into conflict with the
colonists. His opposition to all efforts to make the colonial government
more liberal was intense. He disliked Roman Catholics and hated
Puritans; hence such followers of Baltimore and such New Englanders as
happened to enter Virginia’s borders, were soon made uncomfortable, as
were also the Indians, who were vigorously put down in 1644. Berkeley
and most of the Virginians sympathized with Charles I. in his struggle
against Parliament to such an extent that after the death of that
monarch the governor invited Charles II. to come to America. Charles was
too wise to accept, but several thousand cavaliers did come, and thus
the colony waxed strong.[32] Parliament did not fail, however, to assert
its supremacy. It appointed, as its commissioners, William Claiborne,
who had played such a disturbing part in Maryland affairs and was an
enterprising trader, and Richard Bennett, a man of prominence and
excellent character. It also sent a frigate to the Chesapeake; and with
no struggle Berkeley was superseded in 1652 by Bennett, who was elected
by the Burgesses. He and his successors ruled well, on the whole, and
the colony prospered.
=43. Virginia under Berkeley’s Second Administration.=—With the
Restoration in 1660, Berkeley, who had been living quietly on his
estate, was recalled, and then a period of disturbance set in. Severe
measures against the Puritans alienated them. Enforcement of the
Navigation Act, which compelled colonists to ship tobacco to English
ports alone and to receive European goods only from vessels loaded in
England, bore heavily on all classes. Then again, Charles II.’s grant of
the province to two of his dissolute courtiers, Lords Arlington and
Culpepper, naturally caused indignation. At the same time the bad
condition of the church in the colony, and the corruption of the public
officials, called for correction. The Puritans tried to revolt in 1663,
but were suppressed, and matters grew worse. Berkeley became despotic
and refused to call a new House of Burgesses, the old House elected in
1660 holding over and actually passing a law restricting the suffrage
under which new elections would be held. To crown all, the Indians began
to murder frontier settlers; but the governor, who feared printing
presses and schools, feared the native militia also, and would not allow
them to attack the savages.
=44. Bacon’s Rebellion.=—At this juncture, Nathaniel Bacon, a young
member of the council, brave, honest, and hot-headed, raised, without
orders, a private force and defeated the Indians (1676). Berkeley
resented this unauthorized action and declared Bacon and his followers
rebels. For several months a petty civil war went on, good fortune being
with Bacon, who drove Berkeley out of Jamestown, and burned the place.
The revolt would not have reached such dimensions had not the general
situation been intolerable; but it was bound to be practically local,
whatever may have been Bacon’s schemes for a general colonial uprising
against the Crown. Even as a local movement it was soon ended, for
Bacon’s premature death (October, 1676), whether from poison or fever,
left no one to oppose Berkeley. The latter returned to power and
continued his tyrannical course, executing no less than twenty-three of
the leading rebels. This disgusted Charles II., who had shown much
mildness toward his rebellious subjects in Great Britain. So Berkeley
was recalled to England in 1677, and died there shortly after in
disgrace.
=45. Berkeley’s Successors.=—The Virginians hailed his departure with
bonfires; but in spite of his faults, Berkeley’s career is a pathetic
one. He had not moved with the times. His successors in office, on the
other hand, moved too fast, for they imitated the corruption of the
court at London and overawed the colonists in addition to taking money
from them. There were six of these governors in twenty-one years. They
quarreled with the Burgesses and kept the colonists in a ferment of
riots and hangings; yet the population grew, and some progress was made.
A new capital was established at Williamsburg, and the College of
William and Mary was founded there in 1692 by Rev. James Blair.
DEVELOPMENT OF NEW ENGLAND.
[Illustration: SIR HENRY VANE.]
=46. The Progress of Massachusetts.=—Although the colony of
Massachusetts Bay had a most vigorous start, it was not without its
troubles from the beginning. The governor’s “assistants” soon tried to
concentrate power in their own hands, but the freemen (who, by law, must
be church members) resisted, and a representative house was inaugurated.
Voting by ballot was introduced in 1634, but it was not until ten years
later that the administration of affairs was thoroughly organized under
a governor and two houses. The migration of such leading Puritans as Sir
Henry Vane the younger,[33] and the proposed coming of others, did not
serve to put down the democratic tendencies of the colony, which was
daily increasing in population and wealth, much of the latter being due
to the fisheries and the coasting trade. As a rule, the colonists were
of the educated middle class, thoroughly religious and devoted to their
pastors, many of whom were very able men. One of these clergymen, John
Harvard,[34] by means of a legacy and the gift of his library, assured
the founding of the first college in the country, which has since grown
into the great university at Cambridge that bears his name.
=47. Troubles between Massachusetts and the Crown.=—Meanwhile persons
who had been driven out for not conforming with the ideas of church and
religion held by the majority of the citizens of Massachusetts, had
complained to Archbishop Laud, and that prelate and other councilors had
passed laws for securing religious uniformity, obviously aimed at
Massachusetts. The colony was soon up in arms, but dispatched Edward
Winslow to England to try first the force of pleading. The breaking up
of the Plymouth Company complicated matters, and after legal proceedings
the colony’s charter was declared null and void. The colonists silently
refused, however, to surrender their charter, and were saved from
further external trouble, for a time, by the civil turmoils in England
itself.
=48. Domestic Difficulties.=—Internal troubles beset them also, for
they were as determined as their persecutors to have religious
uniformity of their own kind. They drove out the noble pastor of Salem,
Roger Williams, because he was opposed to giving political power to
church members only. They disliked, moreover, his advocacy of liberal
principles of toleration, as well as his theories limiting the king’s
power to grant lands in America. Williams escaped in the winter of 1636,
thanks partly to the kindness of Indians, to whom he was always a
friend; in the spring of the same year he founded Providence Plantation
on Narragansett Bay. Then Massachusetts was thrown into a ferment by a
Mrs. Anne Hutchinson, who preached certain theological doctrines
distasteful to the mass of the Puritans, although agreeable to some of
their leading ministers. In 1637 she was banished; whereupon some of her
adherents betook themselves to the island of Aquidneck, afterward called
Rhode Island, where she subsequently joined them. The affair seems
ridiculous now, but it disturbed the colony and marked the beginning of
a tyrannical policy of repression that had evil results (§ 55).
=49. Foundation of Rhode Island.=—This intolerance led, however, to the
more rapid settlement of New England, and was thus in part a power for
good. The Hutchinsonians founded a town which they called Portsmouth,
and thither, as well as to Providence, many discontented people flocked
from Massachusetts, both settlements receiving bad names in consequence.
In 1639 Newport was founded by Portsmouth people who dissented from Mrs.
Hutchinson; but the next year the two towns united to form the colony of
Rhode Island. In 1644 all the towns in the region joined to form the
colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, under a charter
obtained by Roger Williams from the Parliamentarians. A separate charter
was later obtained by a faction for Newport and Portsmouth; but finally,
in 1654, the single colony was restored under Williams. It was a home of
toleration, and as such reflects credit upon Roger Williams, its
founder; but it was for a long time a home also of fanatics of all
sorts.
=50. The Connecticut Settlements.=—Meanwhile settlements had been made
by Massachusetts men[35] on the Connecticut River (1635), which angered
the powerful Pequot Indians and drove them to war. The Narragansetts
were kept from the war-path by the entreaties of Roger Williams, but the
Pequots were strong enough to harass the Connecticut towns of Hartford,
Windsor, Saybrook, and Weathersfield. The Connecticut settlers appealed
for aid to Massachusetts and Plymouth. A small army was raised which,
under Captains John Mason and John Underhill, stormed the Indian village
and almost exterminated the tribe (1637).
=51. Free Government in Connecticut.=—For a short time Connecticut owed
allegiance to Massachusetts, but independence was assured in 1639. The
people adopted a written constitution, liberal in its terms. This was
the first of its kind in America, and was chiefly the work of Rev.
Thomas Hooker of Hartford. In 1638 a colony was founded at New Haven by
a congregation of Englishmen under Theophilus Eaton and John Davenport.
Other congregations, all ultra-Puritanic, formed towns around, which
were at first independent, but afterward united with New Haven. The new
colony was weak, however, and was finally joined to Connecticut in 1665.
=52. Evolution of New England.=—Four years previously Massachusetts had
absorbed the last of the towns founded in the colony of Maine, which Sir
Ferdinando Gorges, a prominent member of the Plymouth Company, had been
endeavoring to develop since 1622. The colony of towns planted on the
Piscataqua under the grant made by the Plymouth Company to John Mason in
1629, which afterward became known as New Hampshire, was incorporated
with Massachusetts by 1643.[36] Thus one by one the New England colonies
were being evolved and developed, Massachusetts, however, retaining her
primacy. While local differences were soon to be detected, the people of
the entire region were one in their main characteristics. They were
religious after the Puritan fashion. They were brave and enterprising in
extending their borders and their influence. They were thrifty and
resolute in extracting wealth from their rugged soil and their
storm-tossed waters.
THE NEW ENGLAND CONFEDERACY.
=53. Formation of the Confederacy.=—Similarity of habits, union of
interests, and contiguity of territory naturally led the New England
colonies early to think of establishing some form of political union. In
1637 the Connecticut people, who were menaced by the Dutch on the one
hand and by the French Canadians and Indians on the other, made
overtures for union to the people of Massachusetts. The latter were
indifferent, but the proposition was renewed in 1639 and in 1643, and
was acted upon favorably in the latter year. One reason for the final
success of the movement for union was the belief that the civil turmoil
in England might react on this side of the Atlantic, especially if the
illiberal king should win. Accordingly, in 1643 a written constitution
bound the colonies of Massachusetts Bay, Plymouth, Connecticut, and New
Haven in a “perpetual league of friendship and amity for offense and
defense,” under the name of “The United Colonies of New England.” Each
colony was independent in local matters, and each contributed two
members to a commission which determined such large matters of common
interest as declaring war, forming leagues, etc. In case of disagreement
among the commissioners, questions were to be decided by the
legislatures of the colonies.
=54. The Work of the Confederacy.=—The Confederacy thus established
lasted theoretically forty-one years, but was really efficient only
during the first twenty. The chief difficulty it had to contend with was
the disproportionate burden laid upon Massachusetts, which had but one
vote and yet was more heavily taxed in men and money than any other
member of the league. This led to friction, but in the main,
Massachusetts, being stronger than the other colonies, succeeded in
directing the general policy. This was on the whole exclusive, since the
people of Rhode Island and Maine were not allowed to enter the league.
There was a curious disregard of England’s wishes in the matter of such
a combination of dependent colonies, but at that time England had enough
to do in looking after herself. Massachusetts was particularly jealous
of English interference, and did not even proclaim the Protectorate of
so stanch a Puritan as Cromwell. The Confederacy need not, indeed, have
attracted much notice, for the commissioners acted mainly as a committee
to look after the general prosperity of the colonies. But Massachusetts
showed not a little boldness in passing laws against the raising of
troops in the interest of King Charles. There was also, as was to be
expected, quite a show of religious independence. The Presbyterians,
although for a short time triumphant in England, were not so fortunate
in Massachusetts; for in 1648 a synod was held at Cambridge, which
defined and established a Congregational system, the principles of which
have been strong in New England ever since, and have played an important
part in the evolution of American democracy.
=55. Trouble with the Dutch.=—Meanwhile the settlers in New Haven and
Connecticut came into unpleasant relations with the Dutch at New
Amsterdam, on account of settlements pushed out in the direction of the
latter. When England and Holland went to war in 1652, the Connecticut
colonies tried to make the other members of the Confederacy engage in
hostilities with the Dutch in America, but Massachusetts resisted.
Cromwell sent over a fleet to Boston, which only partially succeeded in
coercing Massachusetts; but before the eight hundred New Englanders
gathered to attack New Amsterdam could be utilized, news came that
England and Holland had made peace. Another instance of local troubles
between Connecticut and Massachusetts was due to a war of trade duties
between the two colonies, which came near breaking down the union. Still
another cause of commotion was the arrival in Massachusetts of a few
members of the newly established society of Friends, or Quakers, who
astonished the staid citizens by their extravagant opposition to the
state religion. Some laws were passed against them, and four were
actually hanged on Boston Common. Plymouth and New Haven also treated
them harshly, but Connecticut indulged in little persecution, and Rhode
Island in none at all.
=56. Dissolution of the New England Confederacy.=—The practical
breaking up of the Confederacy followed the restoration of Charles II.,
and was due to the fact that the king suspected that the colonies wished
to separate completely from England. They had been slow to recognize his
supremacy, and had harbored two of the judges that had condemned his
father. At first Massachusetts managed to stave off the crisis; but in
1664 the king sent over four royal commissioners to investigate colonial
affairs. After conquering the Dutch port of New Amsterdam, with the aid
of Connecticut and of the troops they brought over, the commissioners
quarreled with the people of Massachusetts with regard to their charter.
The General Court of the colony evaded giving an answer to the king’s
demands, and his agents returned home, having accomplished little.
Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Plymouth were more submissive, and the
first named was rewarded with a liberal charter and with the annexation
of New Haven. This interference of the king with American affairs
greatly weakened the Confederacy; besides, the new generation that was
growing up probably did not feel the same alienation from England that
their fathers had felt.
=57. King Philip’s War.=—Meanwhile there had been trouble with the
Indians, although the New Englanders had treated them better than any of
the other colonists had done—a fact strikingly exemplified in the life
work of the Apostle John Eliot, who translated the Bible into a written
language rather unskillfully invented for them by himself. Troubles
arose in connection with Alexander and Philip, two sons of Massasoit,
the friendly chief of the Pokanokets. Alexander died at Plymouth, and
Philip thought the colonists had poisoned him; hence he planned a
general Indian uprising, making his headquarters on Mount Hope, a
peninsula running into Narragansett Bay. After many fiendish outrages
had been committed on towns in Plymouth and Massachusetts, the federal
commissioners enlisted a volunteer army. In December, 1675, this army
attacked a palisaded fort of the Indians at what is now South Kingston,
Rhode Island, and slew about one thousand warriors, half the force
within the walls. Philip still continued the struggle; but the following
August he was killed, to the great rejoicing of the whole of New
England; for the two years’ war, since known as King Philip’s War
(1675–1676), had been a frightful experience.
=58. Loss of Massachusetts’ Charter.=—Their own king was now to give
the people of Massachusetts further trouble. Massachusetts, by extending
her dominion over New Hampshire and Maine, had involved herself in
disputes with the proprietors of those colonies; Church of England
people were enraged at the fact that she would not tolerate their form
of religious service or give them the suffrage; she was also charged
with violating the navigation laws. Aggrieved at these things, Charles
made New Hampshire a royal province in 1679; but his governor proved a
tyrant, the people rebelled, and in six years the sway of Massachusetts
was resumed. Control of Maine was lost for three years (1665–1668), but
later on Massachusetts shrewdly purchased the rights of the proprietors
over it. Charles intended to give Maine to his son, the Duke of
Monmouth, so he had an additional pretext for demanding that
Massachusetts should make a fair answer to all his complaints—a course
of action which the General Court of the colony continued to evade. In
1684, weary of the evasions of Massachusetts, he caused the old trading
charter to be annulled.
[Illustration: SIR EDMUND ANDROS.]
=59. The Tyranny of Andros.=—Massachusetts was now a royal colony, and
in one year it exchanged masters for the worse. James II. was a devoted
Roman Catholic, who had no sympathy with New England Puritans. In 1686
he sent over Sir Edmund Andros,[37] as governor of Massachusetts,
Plymouth, New Hampshire, and Maine. Andros was a servant worthy of his
master, vexatious and tyrannical. He demanded the charters of Rhode
Island and Connecticut; his demand was acceded to in the former colony,
but in the latter it is said that the important document was hid at
Hartford, in a tree since known as the “Charter Oak.” The governor was
not to be foiled, however, for he declared Connecticut to be under his
jurisdiction, and took in New York and the Jerseys (§ 68) as well. Thus
he had the largest territory ever ruled by a provincial governor in
America. He held Episcopal services in Congregational churches,
suspended the writ of _habeas corpus_, levied illegal taxes, and made
himself thoroughly obnoxious.
=60. Fall of Andros: New Charters.=—In the spring of 1689 news came of
the accession of William and Mary, and the tyrant of the colonies was
driven out, just as James had been from England. The old charters were
restored for a time, but in 1691 Plymouth and Acadia (§ 98, note 1) were
added to Massachusetts, and in 1692 a new charter was given the colony.
By this instrument the people were still permitted to vote for
representatives; but the governor was appointed by the Crown, and
religious qualifications for the suffrage were abolished. Massachusetts
was allowed to keep Maine, but New Hampshire was made a separate colony.
Connecticut and Rhode Island recovered their charters, and the century
ended with New England comparatively quiet and loyal.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE MIDDLE COLONIES.
=61. The Dutch Settlers.=—The Dutch West India Company fared badly at
the hands of its own members, the “Patroons,” who shut it out from
trading with their estates. It also had trouble, as we have seen, with
New Englanders at Hartford, and likewise with the Virginians, who came
trading as far north as the Delaware River. With the Indians, too, there
were serious disturbances, chiefly with the Algonquins, through the
mismanagement of Governor Kieft (1643–1645).
=62. Attempts to check the Patroons.=—The Company sought to check the
power of the “Patroons” by establishing communities more or less
independent of them, but the attempt did not thoroughly succeed.
Political disturbances were also due in large measure to the overbearing
conduct of governors, and to the lack of proper guarantees of popular
liberty. In 1641, however, a council of twelve deputies from the
settlements was called in to assist the governor, and a little later,
under Peter Stuyvesant,[38] this was made a self-perpetuating council.
Government was rendered specially difficult on account of the mixture of
population in the colony. For example, so many French Huguenots had fled
thither that documents were often printed in both French and Dutch.
[Illustration: PETER STUYVESANT.]
=63. Swedish Settlement.=—Meanwhile difficulties arose between the
Dutch and the Swedes; for in 1638 the South Company of Sweden, which had
been chartered under Gustavus Adolphus by an enterprising man, William
Usselinx, sent out a former employee of the Dutch Company, Peter Minuit,
to found a colony. He erected a fort on the site of what is now
Wilmington, Delaware, and called the country New Sweden, under the
protests, of course, of the Dutch, whose territorial claims had been
invaded. New Englanders tried to establish themselves on the Schuylkill
and in the present New Jersey, but were soon driven out. The Swedes
persevered until Stuyvesant built a fort near one of theirs, not far
from what is now Newcastle, Delaware; and four years later (1655) the
Swedish Company was forced to give up its attempt at colonization.
=64. New York taken by the English.=—These successes of the Dutch, and
the fact that their territory cut off New England from Virginia and gave
Dutch traders, by means of the Hudson River, the best possible
opportunity of reaching the Indians, made it impossible for England long
to acquiesce in the continuance of Dutch rule in the New World. There
had already been trouble in Connecticut, on Long Island, and on the
Schuylkill (§§ 55 and 61), and things came nearly to a crisis in 1654,
when Cromwell sent out a fleet to take New Netherland. But peace between
England and Holland delayed the crisis for ten years. In 1664 Charles
II., as we have seen (§ 56), renewed the English claim to the territory,
and acting on his orders Colonel Nicolls menaced New Amsterdam with a
small fleet, which carried English regulars and Connecticut volunteers.
Governor Stuyvesant wished to hold out, but the townsmen surrendered in
haste. The other Dutch settlements yielded rapidly, and the whole
Atlantic coast from Maine to Florida thus became English. New Netherland
was now called New York, in honor of its proprietor, the Duke of York,
Charles’s brother—afterward James II. Nicolls was made governor, and
the prosperity of the colony was greatly augmented.
=65. Government of New York.=—Dutch customs were on the whole little
changed, but the form of government was modified in accordance with
English precedents. The towns were provided with a local government,
under an elected constable and overseers. Several towns formed a
“riding,”[39] under the jurisdiction of a sheriff; later, the ridings
became counties. Thus New York had an intermediate system between the
town government of New England and the county government of Virginia (§§
82 and 89). The conduct of colonial affairs, however, depended entirely
on the governor and his council. The early governors presented much the
same contrasts of character as had been seen in the other colonies. Some
were excellent, others were tyrannical. On the whole, the colony managed
to grow and prosper, although in 1673, when England and Holland were at
war, a Dutch fleet captured the town of New York. The next year the
province was given back to the English by treaty, and, curiously enough,
the first governor under the new English rule—Edmund Andros, the later
tyrant of New England—gave the colonists an excellent administration.
After a few years the people clamored for greater political privileges.
An electoral assembly of deputies and certain reforms were in
consequence granted by the Duke of York; but when he came to the throne
as James II., he restored the old illiberal system.
=66. Leisler’s Insurrection.=—Relief was at hand, however; for on the
news of the accession of William and Mary a German shopkeeper, Jacob
Leisler, put himself at the head of the militia and drove out Francis
Nicholson, who was acting as deputy for Andros. Leisler was a rash
patriot, who would not give up his irregularly acquired power. Two years
later he was forced to surrender, and was executed under circumstances
not altogether creditable to the regular authorities. Leisler’s
administration is notable for his having issued a call for a colonial
congress, which came together at the town of New York, on May 1, 1690,
and discussed French and Indian affairs. After Leisler, the people of
New York suffered at the hands of a corrupt governor, Benjamin Fletcher,
who was in league with the numerous pirates of the period; but at the
end of the century his successor, the Earl of Bellomont, put down piracy
and corruption, and restored order generally.
=67. The Settlement of the Jerseys.=—Meanwhile the country south of New
York and east of the Delaware River had acquired the name of New Jersey,
through the fact that in 1664 the Duke of York granted it to Lord
Berkeley and Sir George Carteret, the latter of whom had been governor
of the island of Jersey during the English civil war. The region for
which Dutch, Swedes, and English had already struggled was still
scantily populated; but the proprietors gave it a liberal form of
government, and sent out as first governor Philip Carteret, nephew of
Sir George, with a body of emigrants who settled at Elizabeth.
[Illustration: WILLIAM PENN.]
=68. Disturbances in the Jerseys.=—Other settlers came in, and by 1668
a code of laws of remarkable severity was adopted by the delegates of
the people. Disturbances arose over the subject of the quit-rents paid
by freeholders in discharge of services, and Lord Berkeley was so
disgusted that he sold his share in the province to certain Quakers who
wished to secure for their co-religionists a place of refuge in the New
World. William Penn[40] and some associates shortly afterward acquired
this interest. Then a division was made between Carteret and the new
proprietors, the Quakers getting less than half, which formed West New
Jersey. Here they set up a liberal government, which attracted several
hundred immigrants. In 1682, two years after Carteret’s death, William
Penn and others purchased his interest in East New Jersey, and
established another liberal government. Governor Andros of New York
endeavored to assert his jurisdiction over both the Jerseys, but his
attempts were defeated until 1686, when James II., by writs of _quo
warranto_,[41] forced the surrender of the patents. The Jerseymen,
however, resisted all Andros’s attempts to tax them, and also quarreled
with the proprietors, whose land rights had not been affected by the
loss of their political powers. Finally, at the beginning of the
eighteenth century, the proprietors, worn out with the struggle,
surrendered all their rights to the Crown, and the two provinces were
united into the royal colony of New Jersey.[42]
=69. The Founding of Pennsylvania.=—William Penn’s interest in the
colonization of West Jersey led to his taking a greater part in American
affairs. In 1670 his father, an admiral in the English navy, died, and
left him a claim against the government, in compensation for which he
induced Charles II. to give him a charter for forty thousand square
miles in America (1681). This region was named Pennsylvania in honor of
the admiral, against the modest wishes of the proprietor. Penn at once
offered liberal terms to colonists, and promised a thoroughly equitable
government. Later in 1681, three shiploads of Quakers emigrated, and the
next year Penn himself came over and founded Philadelphia. He soon
convened an assembly, and a code of laws was drawn up, allowing
considerable religious freedom and providing for the humane treatment of
the Indians. With these savages Penn, through his shrewdness and
kindness, was always successful in his negotiations, and as a result
Pennsylvania did not suffer from border warfare.
=70. Mixture of Population.=—The mixed population for which
Pennsylvania has been always noted was present from the beginning. The
Dutch had a church within the region now known as Delaware, and
settlements of Swedes also existed. This Delaware region came into
Penn’s hands through a special grant from the Duke of York. When the
whole province was divided into counties, three were made in
Pennsylvania proper, and three in the small strip covered by the Duke’s
grant, which became known as “The Territories.”
=71. Delaware made a Province.=—Penn was soon obliged to return to
England, and did not come back again till the end of the century, when
he paid a two years’ visit. His absence was marked by considerable
political disturbance. There were boundary disputes with Maryland, and
there was so much trouble in “The Territories” that in 1703 Penn made
the latter the separate province of Delaware. Disputes in both provinces
continued, however, and lasted, under both him and his heirs, down to
the Revolution. Nevertheless, there was a marked and continuous growth
in material prosperity.
THE SOUTHERN COLONIES.
=72. The Settlement of the Carolinas.=—As we have seen, attempts had
been made to settle in the region between Spanish Florida and Virginia,
both by French Huguenots and by Englishmen sent out by Raleigh. But all
such efforts had failed. After the founding of Jamestown, hunters and
other adventurous spirits wandered through southern Virginia into what
Charles I. subsequently granted to Sir Robert Heath as “The Province of
Carolina.” This grant was not used, but the Virginia Burgesses
authorized exploring expeditions into the new region, and in 1653 some
Virginian dissenters who had been harshly treated formed a colony in
North Carolina, which they called Albemarle. Other parties, including
Quakers and individual settlers, gradually pushed into the section.
=73. Grant of the Carolinas to Clarendon and Berkeley.=—In 1663 Charles
II. turned over the province to a group of favorites, among whom were
the famous historian, the Earl of Clarendon, and Sir William Berkeley,
the governor of Virginia. The settlers of Albemarle had their land
claims recognized, and were given a governor in the person of William
Drummond, a Scotchman who had settled in Virginia. South of Albemarle,
on the Cape Fear River, a number of emigrants from the island of
Barbadoes had planted a colony, known as Clarendon, under the leadership
of Sir John Yeamans, who continued as governor under the new
proprietors. Thus there were a northern and a southern Carolina almost
from the first.
=74. Liberality of Proprietors.=—The proprietors were very liberal to
their colonists. Indeed, in the northern province the first legislature
actually felt bold enough to decree that no debts contracted by settlers
previous to their coming to Carolina could be collected within its
borders,—a proceeding which naturally attracted some not very desirable
immigrants.
=75. Locke’s Constitutions.=—But the proprietors made a great mistake
when they intrusted to the celebrated philosopher, John Locke, the task
of drawing up a scheme of government for their provinces. He prepared a
document known as the “Fundamental Constitutions,” in which he seemed to
forget most of the advances toward individual and popular liberty that
had been made since the Middle Ages. Various divisions of the territory
were to be presided over by orders of nobility known as Landgraves,
Caciques, etc. The tenants were called “leetmen,” and could not leave
the estate of their lord without his permission, nor could their
children be anything but leetmen through all generations. It is needless
to say that this scheme for a mediæval aristocracy in a land not yet
cleared of forests was doomed to failure, for it at once produced
discontent in the settlements, to which that of Charleston (originally
Charlestown, founded in 1670) was now added.
=76. Progress of the Carolinas.=—For some time the proprietors left the
settlers of Albemarle, or the North Carolinians, as we may now call
them, severely alone, and the people managed to live by means of a rude
sort of agriculture and by trade with New England. When governors were
appointed for them, troubles at once ensued, and the legislature in 1688
actually drove out Governor Seth Sothel, who by his corruption and
tyranny had amply deserved his fate. At Charleston, however, things went
much better, and population and trade increased, while the arrival of
considerable numbers of French Huguenots added greatly to the moral and
intellectual advancement of the settlers. But there were some troubles.
For example, the Scotch settlement at Port Royal was completely
destroyed by the Spaniards; yet the proprietors would not allow the
Carolinians to chastise their enemy. Then, too, the Huguenots were for
some time denied political rights, and the numerous dissenters had
trouble with the Church of England people. Trade restrictions and the
constant presence of pirates in the harbor of Charleston and on the
coast were also a source of embarrassment. Finally, there was a series
of bad governors, and it was not until 1695, when one of the
proprietors, John Archdale, a shrewd and good Quaker, came from England
as governor, that things began to improve.
* * * * *
REFERENCES.—The bibliography is much the same as for Chapter
II., with the addition of: David Ramsay, _History of South
Carolina_ (2 vols.); Edward McCrady, _History of South Carolina_
(3 vols.); Alexander Johnston, _Connecticut_ (“American
Commonwealths”); E. H. Roberts, _New York_ (“American
Commonwealths”); W. H. Browne, _Maryland_ (“American
Commonwealths”); C. F. Adams, _Massachusetts, its Historians and
its History_; F. L. Hawks, _History of North Carolina_ (2
vols.); J. T. Scharf, _History of Delaware_ (2 vols.); J. T.
Scharf, _History of Maryland_ (3 vols.); S. G. Arnold, _History
of Rhode Island_ (2 vols.); S. G. Fisher, _The True William
Penn_; W. H. Browne, _George Calvert and Cecilius Calvert_
(“Makers of America”); O. S. Straus, _Roger Williams_. For both
Chapters II. and III., see especially Thwaites, _The Colonies_,
chaps, iv., vi., vii., and ix.
Several interesting novels have their scenes laid in the early
colonial period; of these, Hawthorne’s _Scarlet Letter_ is the
most famous. Cooper’s _Water Witch_ and Simms’s _Cassique of
Kiowah_ describe early New York and Charleston. Irving’s
_History of New York by Diedrich Knickerbocker_ is practically a
work of fiction and is full of humor. For more recent and other
older novels, see Channing and Hart’s _Guide_, § 36 _a_.
-----
[30] Born, 1582; died, 1632. Graduated at Oxford, 1597; became a Roman
Catholic in 1624; obtained a patent (1632) from Charles I. for what is
now Delaware and Maryland.
[31] Under royal control religious persecution was allowed, and the
colony ceased to flourish until in 1715 the Calverts were again made
proprietors. Conditions then improved, and in 1729 Baltimore was founded
as a port.
[32] Compare fifteen thousand in 1650 with forty thousand in 1670.
[33] Born, 1612; died, 1662. Noted Puritan statesman who came to Boston
in 1635, and became governor the next year; took sides with Mrs.
Hutchinson in the famous Antinomian controversy; soon returned to
England; entered Parliament, became treasurer of the navy, and was
prominent in the impeachment of Strafford; became a prominent leader and
frequently opposed Cromwell; presided over the state council in 1659; is
believed to have invented “the previous question” in parliamentary
practice; on the accession of Charles II., was executed on the general
charge of treason.
[34] Harvard died in 1638, having been in the colony only a year.
[35] Plymouth built a fur-trading house at Windsor in 1633; Dutchmen had
already settled at Hartford.
[36] It was a royal province from 1679 to 1685, after which it was
reunited with Massachusetts.
[37] Born in London, 1637; died, 1714. Governor of New York, 1674 to
1681; seized New Jersey in 1680; appointed governor of New England and
New York in 1686, with headquarters at Boston; was deposed in 1689 and
sent to England; governor of Virginia, 1692 to 1698.
[38] Last Dutch governor of New Netherlands; born, 1612; died, 1682.
Appointed governor in 1647; ruled in arbitrary fashion and encountered
much popular opposition; attacked and annexed the Swedish colony of
Delaware in 1655; signed a treaty surrendering New Netherlands to the
English, September 9, 1664; died on his farm of “Great Bowerie,” which
embraced a large part of the present lower New York City.
[39] A term used in Yorkshire, England, for a division of a county.
[40] Born, 1644; died, 1718. Was expelled from Oxford for joining the
Quakers; was imprisoned in the Tower for preaching their tenets;
received from Charles II. an extensive grant in 1681; took possession of
his province and negotiated his famous treaty with Indians in 1682;
returned to England in 1684; was deprived of his province in 1686;
regained it in 1688; visited America again at the close of the century;
during his career in England he did much writing and preaching, was now
influential in politics, now under suspicion, had trouble with his
settlers in America, and also with members of his own family.
[41] A writ compelling a person or body of persons to show by what
authority they hold certain rights or offices.
[42] Until 1738 New Jersey was administered by the governor of New York,
through a deputy.
CHAPTER IV.
=THE COUNTRY AT THE END OF THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY.=
GENERAL CONDITIONS.
=77. Population.=—We have now learned that of the thirteen original
colonies that formed the United States, all except the youngest,
Georgia, had attained individual, or semi-individual, existence by the
end of the seventeenth century. The population of New England in 1700
was about one hundred and five thousand, Massachusetts, including Maine,
leading with about seventy thousand, and Connecticut coming second with
about twenty-five thousand. Rhode Island and New Hampshire were much
smaller, containing only six thousand and five thousand respectively.
Homogeneity, thrift, piety, and love of liberty characterized the
population of the New England colonies, and were the presage of the
great development the eighteenth century was to see. The population of
the Middle colonies in 1700 was about fifty-nine thousand, New York
having twenty-five thousand, the Jerseys fourteen thousand, and
Pennsylvania and Delaware about twenty thousand. Homogeneity was
characteristic of New Jersey alone, both New York and Pennsylvania
having very mixed populations. Thrift characterized all the Middle
region; but English enterprise was somewhat tempered by Dutch phlegm and
Quaker sobriety. In the Southern colonies (if we may estimate from
figures of 1688) there were more than twenty-five thousand persons in
Maryland, sixty thousand in Virginia, and about five thousand in the
Carolinas. The English race was dominant, but the presence of large
numbers of black slaves, who were chiefly fit for work in the fields,
checked the enterprise of the whites by confining it practically to
agriculture.
=78. Social Conditions.=—With regard to social conditions, the tendency
in the South was to form an aristocracy, based on race and the
distinction between manual and other forms of labor. In New England,
too, there was an aristocracy, based mainly on education and religion,
but also on birth and wealth. In the Middle colonies there were traces
of an aristocracy in the “Patroons” of New York and in the masters of
the fairly numerous negro slaves. But on the whole, manual labor was
held in esteem, and the population was democratic in its tendencies.
CHARACTERISTICS OF NEW ENGLAND.
=79. Political Characteristics of New England.=—The aristocracy of New
England was unlike any other the world has ever seen. Its members were
energetic, unusually well-educated, serious, and full of a sense of
responsibility. They filled with distinction the public offices and the
professions, especially the ministry. Precedence was allowed them by the
merchants, farmers, and mechanics through force of custom, not through
the presence of a caste system like that of slavery (although a few
slaves were owned), or through the force of laws derived from the feudal
system. As the masses of the people increased in wealth and culture, and
learned to use the opportunities allowed them by the New World, the
power of the aristocracy naturally decreased, although it continued to
exert considerable influence well into the nineteenth century.
=80. Professional Life.=—As was to be expected in such religious
communities, the clergy formed the most important section of the
aristocracy. They led in all public affairs, down to the struggle for
independence, and even beyond it, in spite of the loosening of religious
ties that began to make itself felt in the eighteenth century. The other
learned professions did not at first reach corresponding importance.
There were hardly any trained barristers before the beginning of the
eighteenth century, although the magistrates were men of good character
and general education. The physicians, like their European brethren,
used strange drugs, and prescribed heroic remedies which seem very queer
to us now; and they frequently combined their profession with that of
the gospel or with the trade of the barber.
=81. Mechanic Arts and Commerce.=—In the mechanical arts, the New
Englanders were more independent than the other colonists. They imported
elaborate manufactured products, but supplied themselves with the
simpler ones in spite of the repressive effects of English laws. Among
the most important industries were mining, timber-cutting, tanning, and
distilling. Various needful commodities were manufactured in small
quantities, while almost every farmer’s family made homespun cloth for
its own consumption, as well as nails and similar articles. Fishing was
carried on at great profit, and shipbuilding had developed considerably
by the middle of the seventeenth century. The whale fisheries were
specially important and attracted many adventurous men. The hardy
sailors made both coast and ocean voyages, the trade with the West
Indies being of great consequence, since from these islands sugar and
molasses were brought home and made into rum.
=82. Town Life in New England.=—Boston and New Haven were the chief
towns, and presented a prosperous appearance. There were many well-kept
villages, which were centers of active political life, since those local
affairs which were far more important to the inhabitants than the more
general business of the colony, were settled by the citizens at town
meetings. The houses of the people were on the whole comfortable. Each
village had a school for the common branches, and soon good Latin
schools were provided. Puritan simplicity prevailed in manners and
dress, and, what was better, in conduct, crime being rare. There is
practically but one stain on New England character during the early
colonial period—the stain of persecution. We have already seen its
effects in the religious intolerance displayed against churchmen and
Quakers and independent thinkers like Roger Williams; but at the end of
the seventeenth century it took an even worse form.
[Illustration: COTTON MATHER.]
=83. The Persecution of the Witches.=—Owing to political disturbances,
fear of Indians, and the ravages of smallpox epidemics, the inhabitants
of Massachusetts, near the end of the seventeenth century, were seized
with great despondency. In common with many persons in England and in
Germany they believed that the Scriptural injunction, “Thou shalt not
suffer a witch to live,” was binding upon a modern Christian community.
Under the impulse of this belief they began a persecution of many
citizens, chiefly old women, for the supposed crime of witchcraft.
Trials were held, presided over by learned magistrates; the testimony of
frightened children was taken; and in Salem (1692) nineteen persons were
hanged, and one pressed to death. Hundreds of others were arrested on
suspicion, and for a time the colony seemed completely to have lost its
reason. Even such a distinguished scholar and minister as Cotton
Mather[43] shared in the frenzy and defended it. But Judge Samuel Sewall
(now known for a famous diary descriptive of the life of the period)
made a public recantation in church of his share in the frightful
business. It was indeed a terrible time, but New England emerged from it
safely, and could point in extenuation to many similar outbreaks of
popular frenzy in the Old World.
=84. Literature.=—It has been held, with much show of truth, that only
a people, gifted with imagination could have been stirred into such a
frenzied state of mind as characterized the New Englanders during the
persecution of the witches. Unfortunately, their imaginative powers were
employed too exclusively upon religious and theological themes, with the
result that although much was written in New England during the
seventeenth century, little truly imaginative literature was produced.
Drama and fiction were non-existent, and the verse written hardly rose
to the dignity of poetry. Mrs. Anne Bradstreet (1613–1672) and the Rev.
Michael Wigglesworth (1631–1705, author of a quaint, grewsome poem
entitled _The Day of Doom_) are almost the only poets worthy of mention,
and their works are unread to-day. There were, on the other hand, many
learned divines, like Thomas Hooker (1586–1647), John Cotton
(1585–1652), Roger Williams (1607–1684), and Increase Mather
(1639–1723), whose sermons and religious tracts were widely read by
their contemporaries; but oblivion has fallen upon them also, save
perhaps in the case of Williams. Next in importance to theology stood
history, and among the historians the chief place must be given to
Governors William Bradford and John Winthrop, who wrote the early annals
of their respective colonies of Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay. But
probably the most able and distinguished writer produced in America
during the seventeenth century was the celebrated divine already
mentioned, Cotton Mather (1663–1728), who was, as scholar, theologian,
and historian, an epitome of the learning of the age. His best-known
book, _Magnalia Christi Americana_ (1702), is an ecclesiastical history
of New England that is of great value to all students of early American
annals. There was a little writing done in the Middle and Southern
colonies, but it did not differ in quality from that done in New England
and does not demand attention here.
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MIDDLE COLONIES.
=85. Social Classes and Occupations.=—The Middle colonies, as we have
seen, were in the main democratic, but the New York “Patroons” on their
estates asserted their privileges as semi-feudal landlords, and in their
town houses even lived in comparative luxury. Among the Quakers, too, in
the other colonies, there were always some leading families that formed
a quasi-aristocracy. The professions, as in New England, commanded the
respect of the people, especially in Pennsylvania, which attracted some
well-educated settlers. The masses of the people were engaged either in
agriculture or in trade. Fur was the most important article of export;
but grain and flour were also exported in return for foreign
commodities. Manufacturing was carried on in a small way, especially by
the Germans at Germantown, Pennsylvania. There was a fair amount of
coast and river trade; for the roads were quite bad, except on the main
post-line running from New York to Philadelphia through New Jersey, and
in consequence the waterways were much used for purposes of
transportation of goods and travelers.
=86. Social and Political Life.=—With regard to social life the Middle
colonies were somewhat less sober than New England. Dancing parties,
corn-huskings, and the like festivities diverted the country people;
while the towns had races, cock-fights, and other similar amusements of
the period. In point of elegance and fashion, New York was inferior to
Boston, but was superior to Philadelphia. The English predominated in
the towns; but the Dutch, with their sobriety, neatness, and narrowness
of life, dominated the country districts, which did not extend much
farther than Albany, or, indeed, far away from the Hudson River. The
settlers of the outlying districts in both New York and Pennsylvania
were rude and simple in their manner of living—were, in fact, our first
backwoodsmen. Facilities for education were everywhere far inferior to
those of New England, although one or two good schools existed in New
York and Philadelphia. Religious influences were much mixed, owing to
the variety of creeds tolerated; but Quaker sobriety was almost as
strong as Puritan rigor in suppressing Sabbath-breaking and other forms
of popular license. Politically, the Middle colonies were not so stable
and well governed as New England. In New York and Pennsylvania taxes
were heavy, and there was considerable discontent against the colonial
officials and the mother country. Rioting at elections was frequent in
New York. The Quakers were naturally more peaceful; indeed, their
reluctance to bear arms partly prevented a complete union of the
colonies for self-defense against the Indians. But all things
considered, the Middle colonies in 1700 were in a prosperous condition,
and had laid a foundation for the immense wealth and population they
possess to-day.
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SOUTHERN COLONIES.
=87. Mode of Life.=—The aristocracy of the Southern colonies was based
partly on birth, partly on slavery, and existed chiefly because of the
richness of the soil and of the fact that the numerous waterways
encouraged a system of practically independent plantations. In many
cases ocean-going ships could come up to private wharves, be there
loaded with tobacco, indigo, rice, and other commodities, carry these to
England, and return laden with manufactured articles required by the
planters. It followed that retail trades and manufactures and all save
minor handicrafts were practically non-existent in the South. Towns were
hardly to be found. Jamestown was the seat of government in Virginia,
and was resorted to by the wealthier planters for the purposes of
fashion and pleasure, Williamsburg taking its place later; but for a
long time Charleston was the only settlement in the South that exhibited
real town life. Another result of the independent plantation system was
the paucity of schools, as well as the feeble state of the Church. The
richer planters employed private tutors, and often sent their sons to
English universities. The middle and lower classes got practically no
education. The clergy, except in South Carolina, were, as a rule,
illiterate and were often immoral in conduct. The other learned
professions were at a low ebb also, and education and culture were
almost entirely confined to a few privileged persons.
=88. Social Classes in the South.=—There were four classes of society,
separated by sharp distinctions. Lowest of all came the black
slaves,[44] who increased rapidly in Virginia after 1650, were numerous
in Maryland, and preponderant in South Carolina. They were, on the
whole, fairly well treated, though much overworked in South Carolina.
Toward the end of the seventeenth century a very severe code of laws
with regard to them came into existence; but it is not likely, however,
that the cruel punishments allowed were often inflicted. Above the
blacks were the indented white servants, who frequently came of the
English criminal classes and were treated more or less harshly. Then
came the small farmers and mechanics, who had little education, were
fond of rough sports, and were somewhat looked down on by the planters.
They possessed sturdy English virtues, however, and were jealous of
their independence. The highest class, the planters, were often
gentlemen of excellent birth, courteous manners, and vigorous qualities
of mind and heart. Although keeping up many ties with the mother
country, they were by no means subservient to it, and in political
matters often resisted the colonial governors. From them were recruited
many of the revolutionary leaders.
=89. Isolation of the South.=—Thus we see that there was nothing in the
South to correspond with the town life of New England, with its
enterprise, or with its educational and religious solidarity. There was
nothing to correspond with the thrift of the Middle colonies. Isolation
was the rule, in agriculture, commerce, and even in matters of
administration. The administrative unit was the large county, hence
local government was always difficult and somewhat inefficient. Society
in many respects reproduced feudal aspects; but this lack of social
solidarity was not without beneficial results. It fostered a love of
independence, a fondness for manly sports, and a self-reliance that were
to stand the people in good stead during the trials of the Revolution
and of the Civil War.
=90. General View of the Colonists.=—On the whole, we may conclude that
the English colonists at the end of the seventeenth century had made
remarkable progress. They had secured firm hold of the Atlantic coast
from Maine to Florida, and had absorbed the rival settlements of the
Dutch and Swedes. They had pushed the Indians back and laid the
foundations of national wealth in agriculture, manufacturing, fishing,
and commerce. They had developed a spirit of independence and of moral
sobriety, and had not allowed their intellectual powers to decline. They
were increasing rapidly in numbers, and only their French and Indian
foes remained to dispute their possession of the central portion of the
continent.
* * * * *
REFERENCES.—See especially Thwaites, _The Colonies_, chaps. v.,
viii., and x. Add to preceding bibliography: M. C. Tyler,
_History of American Literature_, Vols. I. and II.; C. F.
Richardson, _History of American Literature_; B. Wendell,
_Cotton Mather_ (“Makers of America”); B. Wendell, _Literary
History of America_; E. A. and G. L. Duyckinck, _Cyclopædia of
American Literature_, Vol. I.
-----
[43] Born, 1663; died, 1728. Graduated at Harvard before he was sixteen;
urged the witchcraft persecutions with great energy; wrote much against
intemperance and on many other subjects, his learned and quaint works
numbering about four hundred.
[44] There were slaves in all the other colonies, and the institution of
slavery was regarded by most persons as moral and legal; but they were
not held in great numbers, and were by no means so profitable as in the
South.
[Illustration: FRENCH EXPLORATIONS AND SETTLEMENTS]
CHAPTER V.
=DEVELOPMENT OF THE COLONIES, 1690–1765.=
COLONIAL DISPUTES.
=91. Character of the Period.=—During the first quarter, or indeed the
first half of the eighteenth century, colonial history contains few
salient features apart from boundary disputes, quarrels with royal
governors, and struggles with the French and Indians. There was a steady
growth in numbers, which may be measured by the fact that from the first
to the middle of the century New England increased fourfold, the Middle
colonies sixfold, and the Southern colonies sevenfold in population.
Wealth and general prosperity increased in fair proportion also. During
such a period of development historians rarely find events of a
startling or romantic nature to chronicle.
=92. Charters in Danger.=—The people of the various colonies were,
however, disturbed from time to time by political events that were of
considerable importance to them, as, for instance, by the attacks made
in England upon their charters. These were in the main successfully
warded off by the colonial agents in London, but they sometimes became
serious. For example, it was proposed in 1715 to annex Rhode Island and
Connecticut, which had liberal charters, to the royal colony of New
Hampshire, which had no charter at all. In the case of the Carolinas,
the proprietors, when threatened with a writ of _quo warranto_ on
account of popular disturbances in their territories, surrendered their
charters to the Crown for a compensation. Thereafter royal governors
were sent to both South and North Carolina, the latter province having
to that time been under a deputy of the governor of the former.
=93. Boundary Disputes.=—Boundary disputes were very bitter between the
colonies and continued, after they became states, into the nineteenth
century. Connecticut especially was involved in frequent quarrels with
her neighbors. New York and New Hampshire also had disputes with regard
to the territory adjoining Lake Champlain. Some of the settlers of this
region revolted just before the Revolution, in order to establish an
independent government, which was recognized in 1777 as the state of
Vermont. Pennsylvania and Maryland likewise had a dispute, which was
settled by the drawing of the famous Mason and Dixon Line (1763–1767).
To the south there were boundary disputes with Spain and to the west
with France. The latter were to lead to serious results.
=94. Quarrels with Governors.=—The disputes between the colonies and
their governors were numerous and bitter. Frequently the point at issue
touched upon the payment of a regular salary to the governor by the
colony, the colonists preferring to keep him dependent upon them by
voting him supplies at irregular intervals. They argued correctly that
fixed payments would be equivalent to a tax levied by the Crown, and
they held out bravely, especially in Massachusetts, against all efforts
on the part of the English government to force them to submit. We have
already seen that some disagreements were based upon the corruption of
governors, their dealings with pirates, and their general tendency to
tyranny. Sometimes, as in South Carolina after the middle of the
century, the governor would oppose a pernicious policy like the rash
issuing of paper money, and would thus incur popular displeasure. Or he
would become unpopular merely as the instrument through which the
English government or the proprietors endeavored to carry out some
obnoxious measure. Religious persecution of dissenters, when attempted
by the governor, was sure to earn him hatred in all quarters, as in the
case of Lord Cornbury in New York and New Jersey (1702–1708). Probably
the disputes carried on by the Pennsylvanians against their executives
over questions of taxation, etc., were more heated than those of any
other colony.
VIRGINIA AND GEORGIA.
=95. A Successful Governor.=—There was, however, at least one
thoroughly honest and efficient governor. This was Alexander Spotswood,
who came out in 1710 to Virginia. He was a bluff, energetic soldier, who
had been wounded at Blenheim. His coming was especially gratifying to
the Virginians, since he brought them the long-craved privileges of the
writ of _habeas corpus_. But even Spotswood found it difficult to extort
money from the Burgesses in order to prepare for defenses against an
expected French invasion. He did not, however, allow this opposition to
render him indifferent to the interests of the colony. He sought
especially to develop its mineral resources, and caused blast furnaces
to be erected,—the first in the colonies. He also imported Germans to
develop the vineyards, which were necessary to his scheme for making
Virginia a wine-producing country. He furthermore showed his interest in
the Indians by establishing a school mission.
=96. The Crossing of the Blue Ridge Mountains.=—The most memorable
event connected with Governor Spotswood’s administration is his romantic
expedition across the Blue Ridge. Little or nothing was known of the
beautiful valley beyond these mountains. Spotswood set out in August,
1716, with a large cavalcade, well furnished with hunting equipments,
and, according to the fashion of the times, with a quantity and variety
of liquors that would now be thought excessive. It was a good deal of a
frolic; but it resulted in the discovery of the splendid valley of the
Shenandoah, to which river the governor gave the rather inappropriate
name of the Euphrates. This region was destined soon to be settled by
thrifty German colonists, and it has ever since been considered the
garden spot of Virginia.[45] Spotswood commemorated his expedition by
presenting his companions with small golden horseshoes set with jewels.
He had to pay for these himself, since King George I. was probably not
anxious to encourage even such worthy colonial orders of knighthood as
the “Knights of the Golden Horseshoe.” The king thought, perhaps, that
his trusty servant did him a better service when two years later he sent
out two armed ships, which conquered and rid the colonies of the
notorious pirate John Theach, otherwise known as “Blackbeard.”
[Illustration: JAMES OGLETHORPE.]
=97. The Colonization of Georgia.=—The country between the Savannah
River and the St. John’s River in Florida, was claimed by the English;
and when the Carolinas became royal provinces, this region was reserved
as crown land. It soon attracted the attention of a noble-minded
Englishman, James Oglethorpe.[46] He conceived the idea that it would be
an excellent place in which to establish a colony to be composed of such
persons as needed a new chance in life after having been released from
the then crowded debtor prisons of England. He secured the aid of a
company in establishing his proposed colony, which was also intended to
serve as a bulwark against the Spanish colony of St. Augustine and as an
important outpost of the fur trade. The colony was styled Georgia, in
honor of King George II. The company of proprietors were very liberal;
they prohibited slavery and religious persecution, and provided that
none of their own number should hold a salaried office. Oglethorpe came
out in November, 1732, and early in the following year founded the town
of Savannah. He treated the Indians well and made a firm alliance with
them. In 1734 a number of German settlers arrived and added much
stability to the colony. This same year Augusta was founded as an armed
trading-post, and soon became the center of a large fur traffic. The
English debtors, however, were not the best of colonists, and the
company was wise enough to induce more Germans and some Scotch
Highlanders to seek the colony. After this the growth of Georgia was
certain, but very slow; for even so benevolent an enterprise could not
escape internal discontent and friction, due largely to the thriftless
character of the English beneficiaries.
FRENCH DISCOVERIES AND CLAIMS.
=98. French Exploration of the Mississippi Valley.=—From the beginning,
the French colonists settled in Acadia[47] and New France[48] succeeded
in making friends with the Indians, to an extent rarely equaled by the
English. But friendship with the Hurons and Algonquins involved enmity
with the enemies of the latter, the Iroquois. This in turn meant that
the French would have great difficulty in penetrating New York. It also
meant that their explorations would at first penetrate the western
region bordered by Lake Superior and Lake Michigan. In this region they
heard rumors of the Mississippi River, and in 1673 a Jesuit priest, Père
Marquette, and Louis Joliet, a trader, undertook to look for it. With
incomparable resolution Marquette surmounted every difficulty, and
finally with his companions floated down the Wisconsin River into the
mighty Mississippi, which they followed to a point below the Arkansas.
Then they made their arduous way back, having accomplished one of the
most magnificent voyages of exploration known in history.
[Illustration: LA SALLE.]
=99. The Explorations of La Salle.=—Their work was finished ten years
later by Robert de la Salle,[49] who with his companions crossed from
Lake Erie to the Illinois River and, after enduring many hardships,
tracked the Mississippi southward to the Gulf of Mexico. There, taking
possession of the region for Louis XIV. of France, La Salle named it
Louisiana in his honor. He had been about four years at his work, in
which he had shown a courage that has made him memorable. Two years
later, in 1684, he sailed from France to plant a colony on the
Mississippi; but, missing its mouth, landed on the coast of Texas. Here
a fort was built, and from its occupation France got her claim to the
territory as far as the Rio Grande. La Salle and his party, after
suffering many hardships, determined to separate into two bands. The
party led by La Salle murdered their brave commander, and finally
reached the Illinois River.
=100. French and English Claims.=—Thus France, through the labors of
her loyal subjects, had established a claim to an enormous region
stretching from the mouth of the St. Lawrence, around the English
colonies, to the mouth of the Mississippi, and thence to the Rio Grande.
East and west the boundaries were practically the Alleghany and the
Rocky mountains. But these claims were sure to be resisted, for the
charters of the English colonies gave them almost indefinite rights to
the westward, and they were growing too fast to be long cooped up
between the Alleghanies and the Atlantic. Before the close of the
seventeenth century, the struggle for predominance in the Mississippi
Valley had begun, and in about seventy-five years France had been
stripped of all the possessions which had been secured for her by the
intrepidity and foresight of leaders who had often been but
ill-supported by their king and government.
WARS WITH THE FRENCH.
=101. King William’s War (1690–1697).=—The colonial wars against the
French for the possession of the region west of the Alleghanies are
known by the names of the English sovereigns reigning at the time of
hostilities; but they practically coincide with important European wars.
For example, the first break in the American struggle corresponded with
the famous Peace of Ryswick (1697). Indeed, throughout the eighteenth
century colonial questions formed a most important factor in the
numerous and destructive wars waged in Europe. The French early began to
see that war must soon arise between the English colonists and their
own, and about the time of the revolution which brought in William and
Mary (1689), they sent over the able Count Frontenac with instructions
to overrun New York. At first he had to beat off the Iroquois; but in
1690 he began that long series of horrible raids, conducted by mixed
bands of French and Indians, which gives such a bloody tinge to the
annals of the times and accounts for the hatred cherished for both their
Christian and their savage enemies by the English colonists. First it
was Schenectady, New York, that was burned and laid waste; then Salmon
Falls, New Hampshire; then Fort Loyal (now Portland, Maine); then
Exeter, New Hampshire. No one knew where the blow might fall next. Panic
reigned among the colonies, and a meeting of delegates from several of
them was held at Albany, in February, 1690, to discuss the situation (§
66). A threefold attack on the French possessions was planned, but only
that against Port Royal in Acadia, led by Sir William Phips, governor of
Massachusetts, was successful. Having destroyed Port Royal, he attempted
to take Quebec, while another body of troops attacked Montreal. Both
expeditions were failures, and, as a result, the French ravages
continued until the Peace of Ryswick, in 1697. Neither side had gained
ground, but the English had suffered terribly. Massacres of the
inhabitants of frontier towns made life a terror to the pioneers, and in
1697 the invaders actually sacked Haverhill, not thirty miles from
Boston.
=102. Queen Anne’s War (1702–1713).=—Peace did not last long, for
William III. was resolute in opposing the aggressions of Louis XIV. His
policy was carried on after his death (in 1702) by the advisers of his
successor, Queen Anne, chief among whom was the famous Duke of
Marlborough, the victor of Blenheim. Massacres soon began again in New
England. Port Royal was attacked unsuccessfully in 1707 and successfully
in 1710, and another expedition to Quebec came to nothing. The Treaty of
Utrecht, in 1713, put a stop to hostilities, and this time the English
diplomats were sufficiently resolute to retain Acadia. Thenceforth Port
Royal, or Annapolis, as it was now named in honor of the queen, was held
by the English.
[Illustration: JONATHAN EDWARDS.]
=103. Colonies at Peace: the “Great Awakening.”=—Peace was to last for
thirty years, a period which the French improved by exploring
expeditions and by the building of forts to secure the great region
watered by the Mississippi. Nor did the English lose sight of the vast
interests at stake. They did perhaps the best thing to be done under the
circumstances—they waited and grew strong in numbers and wealth,
filling out as well as possible their more compact territory. They
experienced also a spiritual awakening that must have strengthened the
popular character in many ways. This was the “Great Awakening” which,
beginning early in the century, became especially potent in 1734 under
the preaching of the famous Jonathan Edwards[50] at Northampton,
Massachusetts. The religious enthusiasm spread far and wide, and after a
short lull, began, in 1739–1740, to flame out afresh under the
inspiration of the great revivalist, George Whitefield. This eloquent
English preacher went to Georgia to join John and Charles Wesley, and
there carried on the religious work which the brothers had begun.
Whitefield preached throughout the colonies, stirring men everywhere,
and undoubtedly producing many good results in spite of the evil
consequences which a period of excitement always leaves behind it.
=104. Establishment of French Forts.=—After the Peace of Ryswick,
Pierre le Moyne, Sieur d’Iberville, established a French settlement at
Biloxi, in the present state of Mississippi. La Salle had previously
built Fort St. Louis on the Illinois River, and it was now the French
policy to fill up the territory between these two points with a chain of
forts and settlements. Mobile was founded in 1702, New Orleans in 1718.
The founder of New Orleans was Iberville’s brother, Bienville. At the
other end of the line Detroit was founded in 1701, Fort Niagara was
built in 1726, and Crown Point was erected on Lake Champlain in 1731. In
order that Acadia might be won back if possible, the strong fortress of
Louisburg was erected on Cape Breton Island.
=105. King George’s War (1744–1748).=—In 1744 the war known in Europe
as the War of the Austrian Succession, and in America as King George’s
War, was begun by a successful French attack on an English post in Nova
Scotia, and by an unsuccessful attempt to take Annapolis. Great efforts
were now made by Governor Shirley of Massachusetts to save Nova Scotia.
He applied to the English king, but his main reliance was upon
Massachusetts and her sister colonies of New England. In the spring of
1745, just one year after the commencement of hostilities, a large
expedition set out to capture Louisburg, and after a siege of six weeks
took that redoubtable fortress. The victory was celebrated in many long
and sincere prayers of thanksgiving and in some remarkably bad poetry.
But the English government was so blind to the importance of the
interest at stake as to restore Louisburg to the French at the close of
the war, in 1748.
[Illustration: SIEUR DE BIENVILLE.[51]]
=106. The French in the Ohio Valley.=—The French now turned their
attention to the task of securing the region watered by the Ohio River.
In 1749 Céloron de Bienville, under orders of the governor of Canada, by
means of canoe voyages and portages, reached Chautauqua Lake and thence
the Allegheny River, where formal possession of the country was taken in
the name of Louis XV. of France. Leaden plates with inscriptions
asserting the French claim were interred at various points along the
Ohio and its tributaries. Three years later a chain of forts was begun
along the route taken by Bienville, the first erected being that of
Presque Isle, near the present city of Erie. These movements of the
French alarmed the English colonists greatly, and, most of all, Governor
Dinwiddie of Virginia. This executive was interested in an American
scheme for settling the Ohio region, through the agency of the so-called
Ohio Company, and his colony claimed the country now threatened by the
French. As soon as he heard of the new fort, he dispatched George
Washington to demand the withdrawal of the French. Washington was just
twenty-one years old, but he had seen life as a surveyor in the frontier
counties of Virginia, and had learned to command men and to understand
Indian character.
=107. Washington in the West.=—Washington, who was already an adjutant
general, took with him only a few companions on his winter journey of
seven hundred and fifty miles through the perilous wilderness. He braved
numerous dangers, which he set down modestly in a journal that is still
preserved. His training as a surveyor enabled him to pick out as a
proper site for a fort the spot at the junction of the Allegheny and
Monongahela rivers where Fort Duquesne was shortly afterward built by
the French, and where Pittsburg now stands. He reached Fort Le Bœuf
(near the present Waterford, Pennsylvania) and gave his letter to the
French commandant. The latter promised to send it on to the governor of
Canada, but continued to occupy the fort. On his return journey
Washington nearly lost his life while attempting to cross the
Monongahela on a raft; but he finally reached Williamsburg in safety,
having been absent only eleven weeks.
=108. Founding of Fort Duquesne.=—Dinwiddie determined to take
possession of the Forks of the Ohio at once. William Trent, a trader,
and some militia were hurried forward and began the erection of a fort.
While the Virginians were thus occupied, and in the absence of their
leader, a party of Frenchmen and Indians descended upon them and they
were forced to surrender, their conquerors finishing the fort and naming
it after Duquesne, the governor of Canada.
=109. Washington at Fort Necessity.=—Meanwhile great preparations had
been made in Virginia. Washington, now lieutenant colonel, set out with
a few troops to aid Trent, but heard of the surrender shortly after
starting. He would not go back, but pushed on into southwestern
Pennsylvania, and there at a place called Great Meadows began a fort.
Having been warned of the approach of a party of French, he attacked
them suddenly and completely routed them. Then he pushed on to the Ohio,
but on learning that the French were advancing in numbers, finally fell
back on his stockade, which he had called Fort Necessity. Here the
French and Indians attacked him vigorously, and after a brave struggle
he surrendered honorably on July 4, 1754.
[Illustration: =Central North America
at the Beginning of the French and Indian War, 1755=]
=110. The French and Indian War (1754–1763).=—This was practically the
beginning of what is generally called the French and Indian War, which
nearly coincides with the Seven Years’ War in Europe. Both sides made
extensive preparations, for the fate of a continent was now plainly seen
to be in the balance. A congress of delegates from the colonies met at
Albany to make a treaty with the Iroquois, and here (1754) Benjamin
Franklin secured the adoption of a plan for a union of the colonies. The
scheme was not approved, however, when submitted to the individual
colonies, which were more or less jealous of their privileges. But if
the colonists would not join to repel the foe, the English under Pitt
were determined to do their best to drive out the French, not foreseeing
that as a result the colonists, freed from danger at home, would be
likely in a short time to form a union to secure independence. They sent
out one of their ablest officers, Major General Edward Braddock, and an
elaborate plan of campaign was determined on at a conference of the
colonial governors assembled by him at Alexandria, Virginia. Four
expeditions were to be made: one to be directed against Fort Crown Point
in New York, and thence against Quebec; another, from New England, by
water, against the French possessions in the northeast; the third, from
Albany against Niagara; the fourth, from Fort Cumberland in Maryland
against Fort Duquesne.
[Illustration: GENERAL MONTCALM.]
=111. Braddock’s Defeat.=—General Braddock decided to take charge of
the last-named expedition. His European training had not qualified him
to command in an unsettled country, and in spite of his personal efforts
he found great difficulty in moving regular troops and artillery through
the wilderness. He could hardly have moved at all if Franklin had not
persuaded the Pennsylvania farmers to hire out their horses and wagons.
In June, 1755, the army began to cut its way through the forest. All
went well, though slowly, until the fort was nearly reached, when
suddenly (July 9, 1755) the advanced guard came upon a large body of
French and Indians. These wily foes immediately adopted border habits of
warfare, and picked off their enemies from behind trees. Braddock, who
had all an Englishman’s contempt for colonial ways, pronounced this
method of fighting barbarous, and would not allow his men to imitate it.
He insisted on using the same tactics in the backwoods of America that
he had been accustomed to employ on the battlefields of Europe. There
could be but one result. His men offered themselves as targets until so
many were killed that a retreat had to be sounded. Even this would have
been unavailing but for the fact that Washington, who was present as an
aid-de-camp and had vigorously protested against his superior’s
hard-headedness, used his Virginians, who had fought their enemies in
backwoods fashion, to cover the retreat of the regulars. Washington
performed many feats of valor throughout the day, and had several narrow
escapes. Braddock, quite as brave, but entirely out of place in such a
situation, was wounded just before the retreat, and died a few days
later. Thus the most important of the four expeditions was a failure.
=112. Acadia, Crown Point, and Niagara.=—The second expedition
succeeded in dispersing several thousands of the poor inhabitants of
Acadia among the colonies;[52] that against Crown Point resulted in a
victory over the French on the shores of Lake George, but that against
Niagara did not even reach its destination.
=113. Effects of Pitt’s Policy.=—Although there had been plenty of
fighting along the American frontier, war was not formally declared
between Great Britain and France until May, 1756. The French sent over a
very able soldier, the Marquis of Montcalm,[53] who was quite successful
for about two years, and might have been altogether so but for the
energy and foresight of that great English statesman, William Pitt.[54]
Pitt saw more clearly than any other man of his time how important her
colonial empire was to Great Britain, and how it could best be
maintained and extended. He supported Frederick the Great on the
Continent, and caused renewed efforts to be made in America against the
French. The fourfold attack of a few years before was again tried, with
almost complete success. In 1758 Louisburg was forced to surrender;
Washington captured Fort Duquesne (afterward Fort Pitt), and Fort
Frontenac on Lake Ontario was destroyed. Thus the Ohio region was cut
off from Quebec; but by resisting an attack on Ticonderoga, Montcalm
managed to keep the French forces wedged into New York.
[Illustration: WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM.[55]]
=114. The Fall of Quebec.=—The next year saw the practical conclusion
of the struggle, in the fall of Quebec. This again was due indirectly to
Pitt. He put James Wolfe[56] in command of an expedition against Quebec,
by way of the St. Lawrence. Wolfe landed with his troops below the city,
which, rising from the summit of its precipitous hill, seemed to be
impregnable. But the young general was dauntless. He performed the
extraordinary feat of passing up the river under the guns of Montcalm,
and landing his troops. During the night they climbed the cliffs, and by
dawn were ready to offer battle on the Plains of Abraham (September 13,
1759). The conflict was hotly waged, the British eventually securing the
victory, at the cost of their brave general, whose equally brave rival,
Montcalm, was also killed. It would be hard to estimate the consequences
of this battle.
[Illustration: GENERAL WOLFE.]
=115. The Treaty of Paris (1763).=—The fall of Quebec had been preceded
by the capture of the posts of Crown Point and Ticonderoga held by the
French within New York. It was followed the next year by the taking of
Montreal. This practically closed the war in America, but peace was not
declared until 1763, when the Treaty of Paris was signed. By these
victories and the peace which followed them, Great Britain obtained
Canada and Cape Breton, nearly all the islands of the St. Lawrence, and
all the territory east of a line running down the middle of the
Mississippi River to a point just above New Orleans. Spain received all
the French possessions west of this line, together with New Orleans. In
return for Havana, which had been taken by the English, Spain gave up
Florida to Great Britain.
=116. The New Provinces.=—The newly acquired territory was divided into
three provinces. Canada became the Province of Quebec, part of its
southern boundary line limiting the present states of New York, Vermont,
New Hampshire, and Maine. Florida was divided into two provinces, East
and West Florida. A line was also drawn around the head waters of all
the Atlantic-flowing rivers in the colonies, and the colonists were
forbidden to settle in the reserved territory, which was set apart for
the Indians. To defend these new provinces it was resolved to maintain
within their borders a force of ten thousand men, who were to be
supported partly by the Crown and partly by the colonies. That troops
were needed was proved by the harassing though unsuccessful siege of
Detroit by the Indians, led by Pontiac, chief of the Ottawas, in the
spring and summer of 1763.
* * * * *
REFERENCES.—See Thwaites, _The Colonies_, chaps. xiii.–xiv. Add
to preceding bibliography: A. V. G. Allen, _Jonathan Edwards_;
C. C. Jones, _History of Georgia_ (2 vols.); C. Gayarré,
_History of Louisiana_ (4 vols.); F. Parkman, _Frontenac and New
France_, _La Salle and the Discovery of the Great West_, _A Half
Century of Conflict_, _Montcalm and Wolfe_; A. B. Hart,
_Formation of the Union_, chaps. i.–ii. (“Epochs of American
History”); W. M. Sloane, _The French War and the Revolution_,
chaps. i.–ix. (“American History Series”); H. C. Lodge, _George
Washington_, Vol. I., chaps. i.–iii. (“American Statesmen
Series”); J. Winsor, _The Mississippi Basin_; B. A. Hinsdale,
_The Old Northwest_; T. Roosevelt, _The Winning of the West_,
Vol. I.; B. Franklin, _Autobiography_; J. F. Cooper, _The
Deerslayer_, _The Last of the Mohicans_, and _The Pathfinder_;
Parkman’s _Conspiracy of Pontiac_ contains a résumé of the
struggle for Canada.
-----
[45] Some of the most interesting operations of the Civil War took place
within the Shenandoah Valley.
[46] Born in 1698; died, 1785. Officer of the British army; received
grant, which he named Georgia, in 1732; founded Savannah in 1733;
returned twice to England, and had a somewhat unsuccessful military and
naval career; gave up the charter to the Crown in 1752, nine years after
finally leaving America.
[47] The region comprising what is now New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and
part of Maine.
[48] The region along the St. Lawrence of which Montreal and Quebec have
always been the two chief centers.
[49] French explorer; born, 1643; died, 1687. Migrated to Canada in
1666; explored westward as far as Lake Michigan and the Illinois River;
was in France in 1677, but at once returned, and, passing via Niagara,
ascended the lakes to Mackinaw, finally (1679) exploring the Illinois
River beyond Peoria; descended in a canoe the Illinois and Mississippi
rivers to the Gulf in 1682; organized a new expedition in 1684; sailed
from France for the Mississippi, but landed by mistake at Matagorda Bay;
murdered by his followers at some unknown spot in Texas.
[50] Metaphysician and theologian; born in Connecticut, 1703; died,
President of Princeton College, in 1758. Became pastor of Congregational
church in Northampton, Massachusetts, 1727, where he remained till 1750;
preached to Indians at Stockbridge from 1751 to 1758; wrote many works,
of which _Inquiry into the Freedom of the Will_ is the most noted.
[51] Born, 1680; died, 1765. Accompanied Iberville to the mouth of the
Mississippi, and became director of the colony of Louisiana in 1701; in
1713 was appointed lieutenant governor; founded the city of New Orleans;
was removed from office in 1720; reappointed in 1733; returned to France
in 1743.
[52] See Longfellow’s _Evangeline_.
[53] Born, 1712; died, 1759. Fought in the War of the Austrian
Succession; was sent to take command in the New World in 1756; took
Oswego in 1756; Fort William Henry in 1757; repulsed Abercrombie’s
greatly superior force at Ticonderoga, July 8, 1758; was met and
defeated by Wolfe at Quebec, September 13, 1759. His defeat practically
transferred America from the French to the British.
[54] Born, 1708; died, 1788. Entered the House of Commons in 1735;
Secretary of State and practically Prime Minister, 1756–1761; laid the
foundation of subsequent British greatness by securing the defeat of the
French in America and in India; resigned in 1761 on account of George
III.’s attitude toward America; gained the appellation of “The Great
Commoner,” through his oratory and his personal influence; was a
constant advocate of the American cause; was raised to the peerage in
1766 as Earl of Chatham, but was subsequently given no important office.
[55] From an old print in the possession of Frank W. Coburn, of
Lexington, Mass.
[56] Born, 1727; died, 1759. Fought in the War of the Austrian
Succession; also against the Young Pretender in 1745; was sent as
brigadier general under Amherst to the siege of Louisburg in 1758; was
promoted for his gallantry to rank of major general, and selected by
Pitt to lead the British against Montcalm at Quebec; was victorious,
September 13, 1759, in one of the most brilliant assaults ever
undertaken; died in the hour of victory. The event gave Wolfe immortal
fame, and secured America to Great Britain.
[Illustration: THE BRITISH COLONIES IN 1764]
PART II.
PERIOD OF THE REVOLUTION,
1765–1789.
* * * * *
CHAPTER VI.
=CAUSES OF THE REVOLUTION.=
GENERAL CAUSES.
=117. Tendencies toward Separation.=—From the first there were certain
conditions that tended to force the American colonies away from the
mother country. The colonists, especially those of New England, had very
generally left Great Britain for the purpose of escaping oppression;
and, after the new settlements were made, the conduct of the home
government was not such as to diminish the sense of wrong. It was less
than thirty years after the landing at Plymouth when the first of the
“Navigation Acts” marked the beginning of a policy designed to encourage
British at the expense of colonial commerce (§ 43), and in 1672 this
unwise course of action was carried still further. A law was passed
which imposed the same duties on trade between one colony and another as
on trade between America and foreign countries; and to enforce this law,
custom-houses were established along the border lines between the
different colonies. This naturally led to a constant and a growing
friction between the royal governors who had to collect the revenue, and
the colonists who had to pay it. The seventy-five years immediately
before the Seven Years’ War are full of instances of the unfriendly
relations between the people and the agents of the home government[57]
(§94).
[Illustration: GEORGE III.]
=118. Influence of the Seven Years’ War.=—These unfriendly relations
were happily interrupted by the war which resulted in the fall of Quebec
and the transfer of Canada from the French to the English. The fact that
the Americans were united with the English in a common cause against a
common enemy drew them nearer and nearer together. In the prosecution of
the war the colonists bore a prominent and honorable part, and at its
close they everywhere shared in the general rejoicing. In this spirit
old Fort Duquesne was given the name Pittsburg, in honor of the great
statesman who had accomplished so much for the continent; and the
legislature of Massachusetts voted for Westminster Abbey an elaborate
monument to Lord Howe, who had fallen at Ticonderoga. It is certain that
a new spirit of loyalty and devotion to the mother country had sprung
up, when in 1760, one year after the fall of Quebec, George III., then a
young man of twenty-two, ascended the throne. He had a great opportunity
to conciliate the colonists and to increase their growing affection; but
he defiantly took the opposite course.
=119. George III.=[58]—The young king brought to the throne a very
unfortunate mixture of good and bad qualities. He had an unblemished
character; he had a strong will and was very conscientious and
industrious; but he was possessed with the idea that the power of the
throne should be greatly strengthened, and that all opposition to such
increase of power should be put down, if need be, by main force. His
ambition was to restore to the Crown the power which it had unlawfully
exercised before the two English revolutions had made it subordinate to
Parliament. For the accomplishment of this purpose he committed the
fatal blunder of pushing aside the great statesmen he found in office
and of surrounding himself with ministers who would aid him in carrying
out his own policy.
=120. Independent Spirit among the Colonies.=—Another peculiarity of
the situation was the prevalence of a decided spirit of independence of
one another among the individual colonies. No effort to bring them
together for purposes of common action, even against the Indians, had
been successful. Even Franklin’s plan in 1754 had failed to unite them
(§ 110). On the contrary, they had drawn farther and farther apart, so
that a very intelligent traveler, who had visited various parts of the
country, wrote in 1760, “Were the colonies left to themselves, there
would soon be civil war from one end of the continent to the other.” And
James Otis, one of the foremost of American patriots, said in 1765,
“Were the colonies left to themselves, to-morrow America would be a mere
shambles of blood and confusion before the little petty states could be
united.” When George III. ascended the throne, the colonies seemed more
afraid of one another than they were of England, and more likely to
drift into separate nationalities like those of Europe than they were to
unite in a common effort to secure independence of the mother country.
THE QUESTION OF TAXATION.
=121. Excuse for the Policy.=—The energetic and fatal policy of the
Crown first showed itself in a determination to impose additional taxes
on the Americans. There was some excuse for this policy. The Seven
Years’ War had been carried on at heavy expense, and a large debt had
been the result. The king claimed that this burden, chiefly incurred in
an effort to protect the American colonists, should be borne, in large
part, by the colonists themselves. To this claim the colonists might not
have objected, if they had themselves been allowed a voice in
determining their share of the tax. But the English insisted upon
determining it without colonial advice.
=122. The British View of the Matter.=—In the course of centuries the
British people had come to recognize the principle, “No taxation without
representation.” But in the time of George III. representation, even in
England, was absurdly imperfect. Boroughs of not more than half a dozen
voters sometimes sent two members to the British Parliament, while some
large towns like Manchester and Birmingham sent no representatives. The
people permitted this bad state of affairs to continue, because the
doctrine was held that every member of Parliament, no matter by whom he
was elected, represented all the people of the kingdom, and not merely
those who had chosen him. According to this theory, the colonies were as
much represented in Parliament as Manchester and Birmingham; and if
those towns could be taxed without direct representation, there appeared
no just reason why Massachusetts and Virginia and the other colonies
should complain of the same method.
=123. The Colonial View of the Case.=—But the colonists, and a small
but very influential minority in Parliament, took another view of the
case. Many of the colonies had been settled by men who had come to
America for the purpose of escaping from a system which they regarded as
unfair and tyrannical. Two revolutions in England had established the
authority of Parliament as against the individual will of the king, but
the methods of representation had not been changed. Indeed, they were
worse than they had been when the Puritans came to New England, more
than a hundred years before. During the intervening period the colonists
had been receiving a liberal education in matters of government. In
their town meetings and their provincial legislatures they had had to
consider and decide a vast number of subjects, until they very naturally
came to think they could understand the real requirements of the country
far better than could a Parliament three thousand miles away. Some of
the colonial writers denied that the British had the legal right to tax
the Americans, while others claimed that, even if they had the legal
right, an enforcement of that right would be contrary to the whole
spirit of English liberty, and ought to be resisted.
=124. Folly of the British Government.=—If the British government had
been wise, these differences might have been reconciled; but George III.
and the friends whom he called about him could not see why Boston, New
York, and Philadelphia should object to taxation while Birmingham and
Manchester did not. The fact remained, however, that the colonies did
object, and this important difference any wise government would have
seen and taken into account. But George III. stubbornly held that if the
colonies resisted the supreme authority of the king and Parliament, they
must simply be forced into obedience. This doctrine, for which the king,
and the king alone, was responsible, was the fatal error that cost Great
Britain the American colonies.
[Illustration: _The Pennsylvania Journal_]
=125. Grenville’s Scheme of Taxation.=—In 1764 Parliament, under the
leadership of Lord Grenville, made a formal declaration that it had a
right to tax the colonies, and a year later proposed to raise a tax by
what was known as the “Stamp Act.” This provided that all transactions,
to be lawful, must be printed, or written, on paper furnished by the
government and bearing the government stamp. Even newspapers and
almanacs had to be printed on this stamped paper. The cost of the stamps
varied from a few cents to fifty or sixty dollars. Grenville thought
this form of taxation would afford no chance to evade the custom-house,
no temptation to smuggle, and would dispense with all disagreeable
prying into warehouses and private dwellings in search of smuggled
goods. It was believed that the act would enforce itself and produce a
large revenue.
=126. Spirit of the Colonies.=—This belief shows how generally the
spirit of the colonists was misunderstood. Only a few of the greatest
and wisest of the British statesmen saw the danger in the policy
proposed. These men, of whom Chatham and Burke were the leaders, did not
deny the constitutional right of Parliament to tax all British subjects,
but they held that it would be madness to try to enforce that right,
since such an attempt would probably result in the loss of the colonies.
The very thing they feared and predicted took place.
THE RESISTANCE OF THE COLONISTS.
[Illustration: SAMUEL ADAMS.]
=127. Organization for Resistance.=—The colonists instantly organized a
general resistance to the tax. Samuel Adams[59] and James Otis[60] in
Massachusetts, and Patrick Henry[61] in Virginia, were the most active
of the colonial leaders. Adams sent letters in every direction
denouncing the tax; Otis inflamed the people of Boston and the vicinity
with his essays and his oratory; and Henry appealed to the Virginians
with overpowering eloquence. A general congress representing the
colonies met in New York, October 7, 1765, and passed a series of
resolutions denouncing the Stamp Act as a violent encroachment on the
principle, “No taxation without representation.” Lawyers agreed not to
regard paper as made illegal by the absence of a stamp. Newspapers were
issued bearing the sign of a skull and crossbones in place of a stamp,
and boxes of stamps, on their arrival, were seized and burned.
[Illustration: JAMES OTIS.]
=128. Repeal of the Stamp Act.=—It was not long before even Grenville
was convinced that the Stamp Act was a failure. As it could not be
enforced, and as it brought very little revenue, it was repealed the
very year after it had become a law. There are, however, two ways of
doing an act demanded by the people: to do it with a tact that will
convey the largest amount of satisfaction; or to do it with some
reservation or qualification that leaves a sting behind it. The latter
course was taken by the British government, which said in substance: We
repeal the act, because its enforcement will be injurious to our
commercial interests, but in doing so we expressly declare “the supreme
right of Parliament to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and
validity to bind the colonies and the people of America in all ways
whatever.”
=129. The Townshend Acts.=—The “Stamp Act” was followed by the
“Townshend Acts” in 1767. One of these acts forbade the colonies to
trade with the West Indies and was evidently designed to force the
Americans to buy West Indian goods in Great Britain. Another provided
for a new duty on all imports of glass, paper, paints, and teas. Still
another, and the most obnoxious of the Townshend Acts, was one which
legalized “Writs of Assistance.” Such writs had formerly been unlawfully
used as a means of enforcing the statute against smuggling. These
papers, by being signed in blank, so that names could be inserted at the
convenience of the officer, provided a means by which any sheriff or
constable could enter any man’s house to search for whatever he wanted
to find.
[Illustration: JOHN DICKINSON.]
=130. Opposition to the Townshend Acts.=—The Townshend Acts provoked
instant opposition. Associations pledged to abstain from using any of
the articles taxed, were formed in various parts of the country. The
Massachusetts Assembly sent a circular letter to the other colonies,
inviting them to concerted resistance; but this letter so provoked the
king that he ordered the governor of Massachusetts to demand that the
Assembly rescind the vote, on pain of dissolution. The Assembly promptly
refused, whereupon Governor Bernard promptly dissolved it. Everywhere a
similar spirit of opposition prevailed.
=131. The Farmer’s Letters.=—The next year, 1768, public feeling was
greatly intensified and united by what were known as the _Farmer’s
Letters_—a remarkable series of papers written by John Dickinson,[62] a
young lawyer of Philadelphia, endowed with wealth, education, and
brilliant talents. He set forth with great skill the claims of the
colonies and the dangers to the liberties of the people from a policy of
submission. These letters were so widely read that they had a vast
influence in shaping the course of the colonies.[63]
[Illustration: GOVERNOR HUTCHINSON.]
=132. The Boston Massacre.=—In 1768 the king sent over two regiments of
soldiers to Boston for the special purpose of enforcing the obnoxious
acts. In March, 1770, there was a spirited quarrel between some citizens
and the soldiers in one of the streets of Boston, whereupon the troops
fired upon the crowd, killing five and wounding seven others. This
event, commonly known as the “Boston Massacre,” greatly widened the
breach. An immense concourse gathered the next day in the Old South
Meetinghouse. Samuel Adams was sent to Governor Hutchinson[64] to
demand, in the name of three thousand freemen, the removal of the
soldiers from the town. The governor thought it prudent not to refuse,
and sent the troops to an island in Boston Harbor.
THE TAX ON TEA.
[Illustration: OLD SOUTH CHURCH, BOSTON.[65]]
=133. Partial Repeal of the Townshend Acts.=—These events convinced
Parliament that the Townshend Acts could not be enforced; but the
government only repeated the course taken in repealing the Stamp Act.
Instead of annulling the obnoxious provisions outright, they repealed
the tax on all the articles except tea, but they held to the duty on
this one article in order to maintain the principle. They ingeniously
tried to make the tax on tea acceptable by remitting the usual duty
which had to be paid on tea sent to America, when in transit it arrived
in England. But it was not the cost of the tea that the Americans
objected to; it was the principle of taxation.
=134. General Treatment of the Tea.=—As the British had no doubt the
Americans would receive the tea under these conditions, large cargoes
were sent to various American ports. The government commissioners
appointed to receive this tea soon found that the people everywhere
refused it. In Charleston large quantities were stored and afterward
sold to the public; at Annapolis the tea was burned; at Philadelphia and
at New York, after browbeating the commissioner into resigning, the
people compelled the ships to return to England.
=135. The Boston “Tea Party.”=—It was in Boston, however, that the most
vigorous action was taken. A large cargo had arrived in December of
1773, but the people would not allow it to be landed. The vessel no
doubt would have returned to England, but the colonial officers refused
to give the clearance papers required of all vessels before sailing. If
the cargo was not landed within twenty days after its arrival, the
custom-house officers were authorized by law to seize and land it by
force. It was evident that the tea must be destroyed, or its landing
could not be prevented except by open resistance. On the nineteenth day
a town meeting of six or seven thousand persons met in and about the Old
South Meetinghouse to decide what course to pursue. During the evening,
in accordance with a general understanding, a great crowd went down to
the wharf to see what would occur. When they were assembled, a small
company of men, dressed as Indians, quietly rowed out to the ships,
broke open more than three hundred chests of tea, and poured the
contents into the harbor.
NEW LEGISLATION AND OPPOSITION.
=136. The “Five Acts of 1774.”=—This defiant action, though applauded
in all parts of the colonies, filled the British government with
indignation, and drove the ministers to the “Five Acts of 1774,” which
by their unwise energy immediately precipitated the crisis. Four of
these were directed against Massachusetts alone; the fifth affected all
the colonies. The first of the five acts was the “Boston Port Bill.” It
provided that no ships should be allowed to enter or depart from Boston
Harbor until the tea that had been destroyed was paid for. This in
effect put an end to the commerce of the city, and completely destroyed
its prosperity. Gloucester was made the port of entry and Salem the seat
of government. The second act was that for the “Impartial Administration
of Justice in Massachusetts Bay,” which reflected upon the colony’s
tribunals by providing for the trial in England or Nova Scotia of
officials accused of murder committed in the discharge of their
functions. The third was the “Massachusetts Bill,” which virtually took
away the charter by vesting all power of appointment and removal
exclusively in the governor appointed by the Crown. The fourth was an
act which provided for the quartering of troops on the people, thus
establishing the means of enforcing new laws. The fifth was the “Quebec
Act,” of which the most offensive feature was the one providing that all
the British territory west of the Alleghanies and north of the Ohio
should henceforth be regarded as a part of Canada. As this territory was
claimed by the colonies, the act was regarded as a gross infringement of
their rights. The Quebec Act also gave the Roman Catholic religion
throughout Canada the stamp of official recognition.
=137. Opposition in Parliament.=—The passage of these acts was
strenuously opposed by several of the strongest men in Parliament. The
opposition of Fox, Burke, Pitt, and Barré was particularly energetic. In
the House of Peers, Lord Rockingham and his friends entered a protest on
the journal of the House, and the Duke of Richmond declared, in his
indignation, “I wish from the bottom of my heart that the Americans may
resist and get the better of the forces sent against them.” But the king
was determined, and Lord North, who had just been advanced to the
position of prime minister, gave his general assent to the measures,
though he privately tried to prevent the king from pressing the
Transportation Bill.
[Illustration: FANEUIL HALL, BOSTON.]
=138. Effect upon the Colonies.=—Upon the colonies the effect of these
acts was general and immediate. As soon as the provisions of the Boston
Port Bill became known, the colonies all saw that they must act together
or be individually crushed. Public opinion rapidly took definite form.
This was largely the work of committees of correspondence, organized at
Faneuil Hall, Boston, chiefly through the energy and foresight of Samuel
Adams. In Virginia a similar mode of procedure was adopted the following
year, and an invitation was extended to all the colonies to appoint
committees for the same purpose. The work of these committees was to
make each colony acquainted with the views of all the others.
[Illustration: CARPENTERS’ HALL, PHILADELPHIA.]
=139. First Continental Congress.=—As a result of the agitation that
followed, Massachusetts, at the request of New York, called for a
meeting of representatives of the various colonies, to be convened early
in September, 1774. The governor of Georgia prohibited the appointment
of delegates, but representatives of the twelve other colonies met on
the 5th of September, in Carpenters’ Hall, in Philadelphia. This body is
known as the “First Continental Congress.” It contained a large share of
the ablest men in the country. After adopting a Declaration of Colonial
Rights, in which the political claims of the colonies were clearly and
fully set forth, they named eleven different acts, which they declared
had been passed in violation of their rights since the accession of
George III. They framed a petition to the king, as well as an address to
the people of Great Britain, and then formed what was called “The
American Association,” the object of which was to put a stop to all
trade with Great Britain until the obnoxious laws should be repealed.
After providing for another congress, to be held in the following
spring, the meeting adjourned on the 26th of October.
THE CRISIS.
=140. General Gage and the Provincial Congress of Massachusetts.=—While
these actions were taking place in Philadelphia, affairs were drifting
to an immediate crisis in Massachusetts. General Gage, now governor of
Massachusetts, as well as military commander, was fully inspired with
the spirit of his royal master. He promptly sent to Chelsea for military
stores and began a system of fortifications. The colonists, easily
perceiving the significance of the British general’s action, took
similar measures of precaution. In order to be independent of General
Gage, they also organized what is known as “The Provincial Congress of
Massachusetts”; and this body, on the very day when the First
Continental Congress adjourned, authorized the organization of a
military force, consisting of all the able-bodied men in the colony. One
fourth of these were to be always ready for action, and, hence, were
known as minutemen. After making provisions for supplying the army with
the necessary equipment and munitions, the Provincial Congress intrusted
the conduct of affairs to the general control of a Committee of Safety,
of which John Hancock,[66] a wealthy merchant of Boston, was the
chairman.
[Illustration: JOHN HANCOCK.]
[Illustration: STATUE OF MINUTEMAN
AT CONCORD.]
=141. Gage’s Purpose.=—It was not long before blood was shed. There
were certain military stores at Concord, and General Gage determined to
seize them. For this purpose he dispatched very secretly about eight
hundred men, under Lieutenant Colonel Smith and Major Pitcairn. The
expedition had still another object. The king having ordered the arrest
of John Hancock and Samuel Adams, these leaders had withdrawn from
Boston and were the guests of a friend in Lexington. Gage had learned
where they were and had ordered their seizure by the troops bound for
Concord. The British force, after taking the greatest precautions for
secrecy, left the city on the night of the 18th of April. But the
vigilant eye of a patriot, Dr. Warren, had detected the purpose of the
movement.
=142. The Ride of Paul Revere.=—In spite of Gage’s orders that nobody
should leave Boston that night, Paul Revere, a Boston goldsmith,
succeeded in crossing the Charles River,—having previously attended to
setting an alarm signal in the tower of the Old North Church,—and
galloped by the Medford road toward Lexington, shouting at every house
that the British were coming.
=143. Battles of Lexington and Concord.=—The minutemen instantly
assembled and drew up on Lexington Common to meet the British when they
appeared. Pitcairn ordered them to disperse, but seeing no signs of
their moving, first fired his own pistols and then ordered a volley.
Eight men were killed and ten wounded. Although the Americans fired in
return, they were in no condition to offer battle. Hancock and Adams,
having received the necessary warning, made timely escape. The troops
pushed on to Concord, but found that the greater part of the stores had
been removed. Four hundred Americans then charged across the Concord
bridge and drove back the British. The minutemen were by this time
streaming in from every direction, and as the British were fired upon
from behind trees and fences, they had nothing to do but to beat a
retreat. They were saved only by a timely reënforcement of twelve
hundred men under Lord Percy. In the course of the expedition the
British lost two hundred and seventy-three; the Americans, eighty-eight.
The battles of Lexington and Concord, April 19, 1775, proclaimed to
everybody that war had begun. The readiness with which the people
responded to the call was shown by the fact that among the killed and
wounded on that day there were representatives of twenty-three different
towns. Within less than a week General Gage found himself surrounded in
Boston by a motley force of sixteen thousand Americans armed with such
weapons as they could secure.
* * * * *
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTERS VI.–VII.—Sir G. O. Trevelyan, _American
Revolution_, Vol. I., contains probably the best account of the
Boston campaign; J. Fiske, _American Revolution_ (2 vols.), is a
delightful presentation of the whole period; H. C. Lodge, _Story
of the Revolution_ (2 vols.); G. Bancroft, _History of the
United States_ (revised edition); R. Hildreth, _History of the
United States_, Vol. III.; W. E. H. Lecky, _England in the
Eighteenth Century_, the part relating to the American war is
exceedingly thorough, careful, and valuable; Lord Mahon,
_History of England_ (7 vols.), more inclined to the British
view than Lecky or Trevelyan; M. C. Tyler, _Literary History of
the American Revolution_ (2 vols.), an invaluable work on the
history of public opinion during the period, and especially
noteworthy in showing the power of the Tories; M. C. Tyler,
_Patrick Henry_; H. C. Lodge, _George Washington_ (2 vols.); E.
J. Lowell, _Hessians_; T. Roosevelt, _The Winning of the West_,
Vol. II.; Burke, _Speech on Conciliation with America_; Channing
and Hart, _Guide to American History_; W. Niles, _Principles and
Acts of the American Revolution_; J. Parton, _Life of Franklin_,
_Life of Jefferson_; for other biographies, see Channing and
Hart’s _Guide_, §§ 25, 32, 33, and 135; G. C. Eggleston,
_American War Ballads_; W. Sargent, _Loyalist Poetry of the
Revolution_; J. F. Cooper, _The Spy_, an admirable account of
Tories about the Hudson; S. Weir Mitchell, _Hugh Wynne_, a
picture of social conditions about Philadelphia; P. L. Ford,
_Janice Meredith_, a portrayal of life in New Jersey during
nearly the whole period of the war; H. Frederic, _In the
Valley_, life on the Mohawk in the Revolutionary period; W. G.
Simms, _The Partisan_, _Mellichampe_, _The Scout_, _Katharine
Walton_, _The Forayers_, _Eutaw_, all relate to the conflict in
the South; J. P. Kennedy, _Horse-Shoe Robinson_, also deals with
the war in the South. For Paul Revere’s ride, see Longfellow’s
poem in _Tales of a Wayside Inn_.
-----
[57] In 1743 the governor of New York wrote that he “could not meet the
Assembly without subjecting the king’s authority and himself to
contempt.” The governor of South Carolina wrote, “The frame of the civil
government is unhinged; the people have got the whole administration in
their hands; the Constitution must be remodeled.” Governor Sherlock
wrote that “Virginia had nothing more at heart than to lessen the
influence of the crown.” The governor of New Jersey wrote of the
legislature that he “could not bring the delegates into passing measures
for suppressing the wicked spirit of rebellion.” The governor of
Massachusetts wrote deploring “the mobbish turn of the town,” and
accounting for it by saying that “the management of it devolved upon the
popular Assembly in their town meeting.”
[58] Born in 1738; died, 1820. Began his reign with an obstinate
determination to increase the power of the Crown; accepted the
resignation of Pitt, and called weak ministers about him; persisted in
his policy of taxing America and humiliating the colonies; reluctantly
consented to peace in 1782; became mentally incompetent during the later
years of his life, when the government was transferred to his son as
Prince Regent (1811–1820).
[59] American orator, patriot, and agitator, second cousin of John
Adams; born, 1722; died, 1803. Studied for a time at Harvard College;
was unsuccessful in business took an active part in political affairs;
drew up Boston’s protest against Grenville’s scheme of taxation in 1764;
was among the foremost speakers and writers for the American cause from
1765 to 1774; secured from Hutchinson the removal of troops in 1770;
member of Continental Congress from 1774 to 1781; voted for the Federal
Constitution in 1788, though strongly opposed to some of its measures;
was lieutenant governor of Massachusetts from 1789 to 1794, and governor
from 1794 to 1797.
[60] Revolutionary patriot and orator; born, 1728; died, 1778. Graduated
at Harvard, 1743; opposed the Writs of Assistance, in a celebrated
speech, 1761; published _Rights of the Colonies Vindicated_, in 1764;
moved the appointment of a Stamp Act Congress in 1765 and was one of the
delegates; made a spirited opposition to the “Townshend Acts”; was
severely injured by some British officers in 1769, and was insane for
the remainder of his life.
[61] Born, 1736; died, 1799. After failing in farming and trading, he
became a lawyer in 1760; in 1763 attracted attention by a noted speech;
entered House of Burgesses in 1765, where he uttered his famous
arraignment of the Stamp Act; assisted in organizing committees of
correspondence; was member of First Continental Congress; gave his
“liberty or death” speech in 1775; was the first governor of Virginia in
1776–1778; also governor, 1784 and 1785; was a strenuous believer in
states’ rights, and for this reason opposed the adoption of the Federal
Constitution.
[62] Born, 1732; died, 1808. Became a Philadelphia leader; elected to
the Colonial Congress in 1765; published the famous _Letters of a
Pennsylvania Farmer_, in 1768; elected to the Continental Congress in
1774; wrote the two petitions to the king and numerous other important
public papers; opposed the Declaration of Independence as premature;
served loyally in the army; was president of Delaware in 1781; president
of Pennsylvania from 1782 to 1785; member of the Federal Convention in
1787, and a strenuous advocate of the adoption of the Constitution.
[63] Dickinson summed up his argument by declaring: “Let these truths be
indelibly impressed upon the mind: that we cannot be happy without being
free; that we cannot be free without being secure in our property; that
we cannot be secure in our property, if, without our consent, others may
as by right take it away; that duties laid for the sole purpose of
raising money are taxes; that attempts to lay such duties should be
instantly and fearlessly opposed; that such opposition can never be
effectual unless it be by the effort of these provinces.”
[64] Born, 1711; died, 1780. Member of the General Court of
Massachusetts, 1737–1740 and from 1741 to 1749; speaker from 1746 to
1748; lieutenant governor in 1756; appointed chief justice in 1760; had
his house sacked and his valuable library destroyed by a mob infuriated
by his action in regard to the Stamp Act in 1765; appointed governor of
the province in 1770; letters of his revealed by Franklin intensified
the belief that he was responsible for the acts of the British
government; sailed for England in 1774, where he died a conscientious
and high-minded Tory. He was the author of an important history of
Massachusetts.
[65] This famous old church in the heart of Boston, the meeting place of
the Revolutionists, was used as a place of worship until far into the
nineteenth century. When it was in danger of being destroyed, it was
bought by a society organized for the purpose, and has since been used
as a historical museum and a place for instruction in American history.
[66] Born, 1737; died, 1793. Earnest patriot, and member of the
Massachusetts legislature from 1766 to 1772; became member of the
Massachusetts Provincial Congress in 1774; was exempted from pardon by
Governor Gage in 1775; was in Continental Congress from 1775 to 1780,
and from 1785 to 1786; president of Congress from 1775 to 1777; signer
of the Declaration of Independence, his bold signature standing first on
the document; was commissioned as major general; delegate to
Massachusetts constitutional convention in 1780; governor of
Massachusetts from 1780 to 1785, and from 1787 to 1792; liberally used
his large fortune for patriotic and benevolent purposes.
CHAPTER VII.
=THE CAMPAIGNS OF 1775 AND 1776.=
EARLY MOVEMENTS.
=144. Continental Army and Commander in Chief.=—When the Second
Continental Congress came together in the spring of 1775, one of its
first acts was to adopt as a continental army the forces which had
enlisted in Massachusetts. It then performed an act of the greatest
possible service to the cause by appointing George Washington[67]
commander in chief. Washington was forty-three years of age, and the
important services he had rendered in Virginia and Pennsylvania (§§
106-111) had given him such military knowledge and such accuracy of
judgment in dealing with men as made him universally respected and
admired. He accepted the appointment with a full sense of the greatness
of the task, and declared that he would receive no pay, but would rely
on Congress to reimburse him for his expenses.
=145. Capture of Ticonderoga.=—While Congress was taking these
preliminary steps, there was great activity in various parts of the
country. Ethan Allen and Seth Warner, with a small force from Vermont,
assisted by a few men from Connecticut under Benedict Arnold, surprised
and captured Fort Ticonderoga. By this success the Americans got
possession of an important fort, as well as of many stores and more than
two hundred cannon.
=146. Fortification of Bunker Hill.=—As soon as the news of Lexington
and Concord spread through the colonies, troops poured in to the
vicinity of Boston from Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, and
Pennsylvania. Before the middle of June, Boston, on the land side, was
thoroughly invested. The British had seventeen battalions of infantry
and five companies of artillery, and before June their army was joined
by three major generals—Howe, Clinton, and Burgoyne. Late in the
afternoon of June 16, General Ward, then in command of the Americans,
ordered a force to take possession of Bunker Hill, a commanding point in
Charlestown, just north of Boston. About twelve hundred troops under
Colonel Prescott, a veteran of the French War, went over from Cambridge
with spades and picks, which in the course of the night they used so
industriously that the British soldiers in the morning saw strong works
confronting them. But instead of obeying orders and occupying Bunker
Hill, Prescott occupied Breed’s Hill, a point nearer Boston.
[Illustration: BOSTON AND ENVIRONS, 1775]
[Illustration: GENERAL JOSEPH WARREN.]
[Illustration: GENERAL HOWE.]
=147. The Battle of Bunker Hill.=—General Gage, wishing to dislodge the
Americans at once, instead of approaching by the Neck (see map), where
he could have cut off the whole force, ordered an immediate assault upon
the enemy’s front. Meanwhile, in the course of the forenoon (June 17),
the Americans were reënforced by about one thousand troops. These
newcomers, however, had little ammunition and few bayonets. The British,
numbering about three thousand, advanced under the gallant lead of
General Howe. The Americans reserved their fire until the front ranks
were within about fifty yards, when at the first volley so many of the
assaulting force fell that the line staggered back in confusion. The
second advance met with a still more disastrous repulse. In several of
the companies as many as four out of five had fallen; but when the third
assault was made, the ammunition of the Americans gave out, and the
British were successful. Among the killed were many officers of rank,
including Pitcairn, the British commander who had fired the first shot
at Lexington, and General Warren,[68] one of the foremost of the
American leaders. The British lost one thousand and fifty-four in killed
and wounded; the Americans, four hundred and forty-nine. The forces were
relatively small, but, in proportion to the numbers on the field, the
battle was one of the bloodiest engagements of modern times. On both
sides the men fought with a bravery worthy of the best traditions of
English courage. Of Howe’s twelve staff officers every one was either
killed or wounded. The battle made it evident that untrained American
recruits, when behind only temporary defenses, had no need to be afraid
to meet disciplined veterans. The British government, dissatisfied with
the conduct of General Gage, recalled him and he was superseded by
General William Howe.[69]
WASHINGTON IN COMMAND.
=148. Difficulties confronting Washington.=—Washington soon reached the
scene of action, and took command of the American army on July 3, under
an elm tree which still stands near Harvard University, in Cambridge,
commemorating the event. The difficulties which beset him might well
have disheartened a less resolute and skillful commander. His
embarrassments were chiefly of three kinds. In the first place, the
number of men at his command was at no time greater than the number of
the regular British troops confronting him. His force had left their
farms in midsummer without having enlisted for any definite period, and
when the first burst of enthusiasm died away, it was very difficult to
keep the ranks filled. In the second place, each of the provinces had
its own laws, and consequently there was no uniformity of method and no
subordination to any common authority. Washington dismissed sundry
officers for insubordination, and he was obliged persistently to urge
the governors of the several states to keep their quotas full.[70] In
the third place, he soon discovered that the Americans had very little
ammunition. There was not enough for a single battle, and it was plain
that if at any time during the fall or winter the British should make a
vigorous attack, they would in all probability succeed in breaking up
the American army. To supply this deficiency Washington sent messengers
in every direction. He dispatched an expedition to seize the British
stores at the Bermudas; he had cannon dragged on ox sleds from
Ticonderoga; and he gradually collected powder from all the country
towns in the region.
[Illustration: THE WASHINGTON ELM, CAMBRIDGE.]
[Illustration: BOSTON AND ENVIRONS, 1776]
=149. The Taking of Dorchester Heights.=—Notwithstanding all these
discouragements, Washington drilled the army vigorously throughout the
fall and winter. Early in March, 1776, he determined upon a movement
which was destined to prove decisive. Dorchester Heights, projecting
from the mainland south of Boston, commanded the town from this
direction, as Charlestown commanded it from the north. Howe committed a
fatal blunder in not establishing himself upon this point; and the
consequence was, that one morning he discovered that the enterprising
enemy had not only occupied the hill, but had thrown up formidable works
commanding the city. A few days later, on March 9, the Americans also
constructed works on Nook’s Point, which commanded the Neck and brought
every part of the city within range.
=150. Evacuation of Boston.=—Howe, not caring to repeat the experiences
of Bunker Hill, saw that he must evacuate the city. With all his troops
he withdrew and sailed for Halifax, March 17, 1776, leaving the
Americans in full possession. His force of veterans had been besieged
for months by an army of raw troops, which did not at any time exceed in
number the army of the besieged. More remarkable still, the besieging
army had, during this period, been disbanded and reorganized, and during
most of the winter had not had ammunition amounting to more than thirty
rounds to a man. This great achievement not only inspired the colonies,
but convinced the British government that it had undertaken a most
formidable task. Washington, without a battle, had, by his superior
strategy, maneuvered his enemy out of the city.
[Illustration: COLONEL BENEDICT ARNOLD.]
=151. Expedition into Canada.=—While the siege of Boston was going on,
Colonel Benedict Arnold[71] suggested that an expedition should be sent
for the capture of Montreal and Quebec. Unfortunately, this unwise
proposition prevailed. A part of the force under General Montgomery
descended Lake Champlain and, after a difficult, brilliant campaign,
took Montreal. The other command, under Arnold, after an expedition of
almost indescribable hardships through the forests of Maine in the dead
of winter, presented itself before Quebec. Montgomery, who had by that
time advanced from Montreal, attacked the city from above while Arnold
attacked it from below. Montgomery was killed while scaling the heights,
and Arnold was severely wounded. Morgan, Arnold’s second in command,
pressed forward and would, no doubt, have been successful, if
Montgomery’s force had not been thrown into panic by the fall of their
leader. Morgan and nearly all his force were taken prisoners, and the
expedition was a complete failure.
=152. Final Effort of Congress for Peace.=—In the course of the same
winter (1775–1776), Congress, then in session at Philadelphia, put forth
another and a final effort to make terms with the king. A careful and
formal statement of grievances was sent to England, but neither the king
nor Parliament would receive it, determining instead very greatly to
increase the army. This was done, partly by sending additional British
troops, and partly by hiring about twenty thousand Germans from some of
the lesser German princes. As these mercenaries came very largely from
the duchy of Hesse, they were known throughout the war as Hessians. The
fact that the British bought the services of foreigners to fight the
Americans greatly exasperated the colonists.
THE WAR IN NEW YORK.
=153. Washington’s Movements.=—After the failure of the Canadian
expedition, Washington conjectured that the British would try to get
possession of the Hudson by attacking it both from the north and from
the south. He had no doubt that Howe’s force would ultimately land at
New York. To meet such a movement, he ordered Arnold, as soon as he
should recover from his wound, to oppose any approach from the north,
while he himself should transfer the greater part of his army to New
York. Arriving in April, 1776, he soon found that his conjecture had
been correct. Howe, as soon as he had reorganized his forces in Halifax,
set sail for the mouth of the Hudson. Here he established headquarters
upon Staten Island, where he received reënforcements till he had an army
of about thirty thousand men. He soon had the assistance also of a
formidable fleet under Admiral Lord Howe, his brother.
[Illustration: GENERAL NATHANAEL GREENE.]
=154. Occupation of New York and Brooklyn.=—Washington had not only
taken possession of New York City, but had fortified Governor’s Island,
as well as Brooklyn, and the New Jersey shore at Paulus Hook opposite
New York. Brooklyn Heights were put in command of General Nathanael
Greene,[72] but he was suddenly stricken with fever and the command was
transferred to General Israel Putnam,[73] with Generals Sullivan and
Stirling as subordinate officers, and a force of about nine thousand
men.
=155. Battle of Long Island.=—As this position commanded the city, the
British took the natural course of planning an attack from the east.
Landing southeast of Brooklyn with about twenty thousand men, August 22
and 25, Howe pushed one of his divisions by a circuitous route toward
the north, for the purpose of turning the flank of the Americans and
making their escape in that direction impossible. In the battle of Long
Island, which ensued, the Americans, having only about five thousand men
in the field, were greatly outnumbered and defeated. Generals Sullivan
and Stirling, with about two thousand of their men, were taken
prisoners. The remainder of the army fell back and rejoined Putnam
within the fortifications. Preparations were at once made for a siege.
With the British force surrounding Brooklyn on the land side and with
Admiral Howe’s fleet in New York Bay, the escape of the army, which
Washington had now reënforced to about twelve thousand men, seemed
impossible.
=156. Retreat to New York.=—Washington well knew that the Brooklyn army
must either escape or surrender. He therefore caused all the boats and
rafts of every kind that could transport men or ammunition, to be
brought together from the various streams and bays in the vicinity. So
skillfully was this work done, that in the course of a single foggy
night, August 29, the boats were collected on the Brooklyn side of the
river, and the whole army, with guns and stores, was taken across to New
York. This remarkable exploit might, no doubt, have been prevented had
there been greater vigilance on the part of the British fleet.
=157. Evacuation of New York.=—But this bit of good fortune did not
enable Washington to hold New York. The British immediately sailed up
the East River and prepared to land their forces, if possible, so as to
intercept Washington’s army. They secured a footing, September 15, first
at Kipp’s Bay, where the Thirty-fourth Street ferry now is, and later at
Throg’s Neck, a few miles above; but the main force of the Americans was
able to pass up the west coast of the island before the enemy could cut
them off.[74] Washington’s troops were not numerous enough to justify a
pitched battle; but while retreating, he retarded and annoyed the enemy
at every point. On the 28th of October he fought a slight engagement at
White Plains, some thirty miles from New York, to hold the British in
check while the main army should pass still farther north. The British
now withdrew to Dobb’s Ferry and threatened Fort Washington.
=158. Loss of Fort Washington and Fort Lee.=—The lower Hudson at that
time depended for its defense upon two fortifications: Fort Washington,
situated near the upper end of Manhattan Island, on which the city of
New York stands, and Fort Lee, on the opposite side of the river.
Washington decided to abandon these defenses to the British and to
establish strong fortifications some forty-five miles up the river.
Congress, however, directed that Fort Washington be held, if possible;
and the commander unfortunately yielded his opinion so far as to allow
General Greene, who was in command of both the forts, to defend them in
case he should deem successful defense possible. The result was the most
serious of the early disasters of the war. The British broke through the
obstructions that had been placed in the river, and having passed with
their fleet above Fort Washington, surrounded it in such a way that
escape was impossible. When a vigorous assault was made, nearly three
thousand American troops were forced to surrender, November 16. The
abandonment of Fort Lee necessarily followed.
GENERAL CONDITION OF THE COUNTRY.
[Illustration: COLONIAL FLAG, 1776.]
=159. Lack of Union among the Colonies.=—The war was not simply a war
of separation; it was also in some of its features a civil war. The loss
of New York, including Fort Washington, brought out the American
opponents of the Revolution in great force. From the very beginning of
the agitation which resulted in independence, there had been three
somewhat distinct classes of people among the colonists. One class
believed that on the whole the British government was the best in
existence, and that the colonists would be benefited by showing a
constant spirit of loyalty and fidelity to the Crown. Such people were
opposed to every form of agitation that would look to the British like
insubordination. The second class, while believing that there were
abuses which should and would be corrected, acknowledged the supreme
power of Parliament. Like the British, they did not see why their lack
of representation differed very greatly in principle from the condition
of some of the larger towns in England. They thought also that the
abuses could in time be removed by a general and friendly agitation. The
third class consisted of the out-and-out reformers. Their leaders were
such men as Samuel Adams, James Otis, and Patrick Henry, who believed
that if the rights of the colonies were not granted when they were
pointed out, the proper course was to fight for them. As the agitation
went on and the British government made blunder after blunder, the third
of these classes, though at first inferior in numbers to the others,
became more perfectly organized and so got the upper hand. But it is a
great mistake to suppose that the American people at any time were
unanimous on the subject of independence, or even of resistance. It is
probable that in the second year of the war, even in New England, one
fourth of the people were opposed to it; that in the Middle states the
proportion was as great as one-third; and in the Southern states nearly,
or quite, as great as one half.
=160. The Tories.=—All those who were opposed to the action of Congress
naturally came to be regarded as enemies, and were known as Tories. From
the first they made a vast amount of trouble. During the siege of Boston
they were numerous, outspoken, and influential. They desired that the
Revolutionary cause should fail. They acted as spies and carried
information to the British; and whenever the patriot cause suffered any
check or disaster, they did whatever they could to show that successful
resistance was impossible. In the State of New York the Tories from the
first were not only numerous, but very active. Soon after Washington
took possession of the city he discovered that Tryon, the Tory governor,
was at the bottom of a plot to capture or kill the commander in chief,
and turn over the city to the enemy. Tryon escaped, but some of the
other leaders were arrested and tried, and one of Washington’s own
guards, who had been bribed, was publicly hanged. Though this summary
procedure discouraged the Tories, they continued to be of great service
to the British and of great annoyance to the Americans. In New York and
in the South the struggle was attended with many of the horrors of civil
war.
FAILURE OF BRITISH EXPEDITIONS.
[Illustration: GENERAL WILLIAM MOULTRIE.]
=161. Carleton’s Expedition.=—While Washington had been unsuccessfully
attempting to resist the advances of the British in New York, the
Americans had been more fortunate in other parts of the country. An
expedition under Sir Guy Carleton, the governor of Canada, was planned
to advance up the river St. John, into Lake Champlain, and down the
Hudson, but it met so vigorous a resistance from Arnold near Valcour’s
Island, that, although Arnold’s fleet was almost destroyed, the British
were obliged to return to Montreal for winter quarters.
=162. Expedition of Sir Henry Clinton.=—In the South the enemy fared no
better. Sir Henry Clinton, with about two thousand men, had been sent
from Boston, while the siege was going on, to take possession of North
Carolina; but the sturdy Scotchmen of that state, who were generally
Tories, were defeated by the patriots, who immediately organized so
powerful a resistance that Clinton did not attempt even to land.
Reënforced a little later by a British fleet of ten ships under Sir
Peter Parker, he advanced upon Charleston in South Carolina. Vigorous
preparations for resistance had already been made, under the direction
of General Lee. General William Moultrie[75] constructed a low fort in
Charleston Harbor, chiefly of palmetto logs and sand, which proved an
effectual barrier to the British advance. The shots from the fleet sank
into the spongy logs without doing much damage, while the shots from the
fort were so effective as to disable nine of the ten ships (June 28).
The gallantry of this defense has caused the fort ever since to be known
as Fort Moultrie, although events of the War between the States have
caused the neighboring Fort Sumter to become more famous. Clinton’s land
force being held back for lack of suitable boats, the expedition proved
a complete failure, and the British with their disabled ships returned
to the North.
THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.
[Illustration: RICHARD HENRY LEE.]
=163. Growing Spirit of Independence.=—Of much greater importance than
the events in the field were the events in Congress. At the beginning of
the contest public opinion in America very generally attributed the
course of Great Britain to bad leaders in Parliament rather than to the
king. At first there was a strong feeling of loyalty and even affection
toward George III., which would have made it easy for him to heal all
differences. One effort after another had been made to induce the king
to consider the petitions and remonstrances sent him, but these efforts
had all failed. Even as late as the beginning of the war there was very
little general thought of independence. But at the end of May, soon
after the news of the first conflict at Lexington and Concord reached
North Carolina, the people of Mecklenburg County assembled and passed a
series of resolutions, declaring that as the mother country had
pronounced the Americans rebels, the colonists were absolved from all
further allegiance. This declaration seems to have attracted very little
attention at the time; but as events progressed, public opinion drifted
so rapidly in this direction, that early in the summer of 1776 the
leading minds came one after another to the conclusion that independence
was inevitable. Final action was not the result of any sudden impulse,
but of most careful consideration.
[Illustration: THOMAS JEFFERSON.]
[Illustration: =House in which Jefferson wrote the
Declaration of Independence=, corner of
Market and Seventh Streets, Philadelphia.]
=164. Signing of the Declaration.=—After much private discussion had
revealed the opinions of the members of Congress, Richard Henry Lee,[76]
on the 7th of June, offered a resolution that “these united colonies are
and ought to be independent states, and they are absolved from all
allegiance to the British crown.” The resolution was vigorously opposed
by Dickinson of Pennsylvania and Livingston of New York, partly on the
ground that a sufficient time had not yet elapsed for an answer from the
king, and partly because the individual colonies had not yet authorized
such action. But the colonies did not long hesitate. Most of them had
already erected independent governments of their own. As early as July,
1775, Massachusetts had formed a government in which the king’s
authority was practically set aside, and James Bowdoin was made chief
executive officer and John Adams chief justice. Before July, 1776, all
the other provinces, with the exception of New York, had taken similar
measures, and more than two-thirds of them had voted for independence
and had instructed their delegates to vote for Lee’s resolution. This
resolution was accordingly adopted by Congress on the 2d of July. A
committee, with Thomas Jefferson[77] as chairman, had been appointed in
June to draw up a formal declaration in case independence should be
agreed upon. Jefferson, then only thirty-three years of age, wrote the
paper which, after slight modifications by Franklin and Adams, was
adopted as the Declaration of Independence, on the 4th of July, 1776.
This immortal document was thus put forth as an expression of the
deliberate and firm conviction of the American people that the priceless
treasure of human liberty could be preserved in no other manner. As the
members one after another, with a solemn sense of the danger of this
momentous act, signed the memorable document, Franklin[78] threw a gleam
of sunshine upon the occasion by remarking that they must now all hang
together, or they would hang separately.
[Illustration: =Old Statehouse in Philadelphia, now
known as Independence Hall.=]
=165. Purport and Effect of the Declaration.=—The Declaration of
Independence was aimed directly at the Crown. It charged the king with
“repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the
establishment of an absolute tyranny over these States.” This general
indictment was sustained, with some exaggerations but with essential
truthfulness, by no less than eighteen accusations, or separate counts,
aimed at the king, and the king alone. So far as the purpose of the
colonies was defined by the Declaration, it was not a contest against
the parliamentary government of Great Britain, but a contest against
those unconstitutional usurpations of the Crown to which the colonies
would not submit. From this point of view many modern criticisms of the
document are seen to be hypercritical. However much the signers may have
exaggerated specific charges, they did not exaggerate the general danger
to be apprehended from the king’s self-willed conduct.
[Illustration: BENJAMIN FRANKLIN.]
[Illustration: PORTION OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.]
THE WAR IN NEW JERSEY.
=166. Washington’s First Campaign in New Jersey.=—After the fall of
Fort Washington and the withdrawal from Fort Lee, Washington planned to
concentrate the main portion of his army in New Jersey, to prevent the
enemy from advancing upon Philadelphia. In crossing to New Jersey he had
left General Charles Lee, with seven thousand men, at Northcastle on the
east side of the Hudson. Washington now directed General Heath to
fortify the Highlands about Peekskill and West Point in the strongest
manner possible, and ordered General Lee to join the main army in New
Jersey.
=167. Disobedience and Capture of Lee.=—For reasons which were long
unexplained, Lee disobeyed the order of Washington, and chose to remain
where he was. Repeated orders were disobeyed, but finally Lee made a
show of obedience. He reached Morristown, however, with only three
thousand of his seven thousand troops. Scarcely had he posted this
fragment of his army on the Morristown Heights when, leaving the
immediate command to Sullivan, he took quarters in a small public house
some miles away. A Tory, learning of this fact, galloped eighteen miles
with the news to the British, and the consequence was that Lee, in
dressing gown and slippers, was taken prisoner by a troop of British
dragoons. From Lee’s subsequent career (§§ 183, 184) and the discovery
of his correspondence, it now seems probable that he already had
traitorous designs.
=168. Washington’s Difficulties and his Retreat.=—The capture of Lee
left Sullivan in command of the Northern army, and that officer moved at
once to the support of Washington; but the difficulties of the situation
seemed overwhelming. Howe and Cornwallis had crossed into New Jersey
with a force more than twice as great as that of the Americans.
Moreover, as the terms of enlistment expired, Washington found it almost
impossible to keep his ranks full. Still worse, Howe, desiring to take
advantage of the apparent lack of enthusiasm on the part of the American
patriots, now made a final effort to induce them to throw down their
arms. This was done under a promise of full pardon and protection to all
who should abandon the Continental cause. More than three thousand
persons, believing there was no possibility of success for the
Americans, yielded to these allurements and deserted to the British.
Tories everywhere now emerged from their obscurity and boldly asserted
their allegiance to the king. Washington could not venture battle with
his inferior force, but, with masterly skill, he slowly withdrew his
army, crossing stream after stream with the British close on his heels.
Even the broad waters of the Delaware did not baffle him. Pressed hard
by superior forces, he threw his army across the river and destroyed all
the boats on the opposite bank for nearly one hundred miles. His
opponents found it impossible to follow, and decided to wait for the
river to freeze over.
[Illustration: RETREAT ACROSS NEW JERSEY, 1776–1777]
=169. Washington turns upon his Enemy.=—Howe and Cornwallis thought the
war practically at an end. Deciding to leave their army east of the
Delaware, with its center at Trenton and its wings at Burlington and
Princeton, they returned to New York for the festivities of the
holidays, where Howe was to celebrate the knighthood conferred upon him
for the capture of New York. But Washington had a Christmas surprise in
store for them. Including the forces of Gates and Sullivan, he now
commanded about six thousand men. The loose disposition of Howe’s troops
gave him an opportunity which he immediately turned to account. He
decided by a secret movement to strike a hard blow at the British
center. His plan was to cross the Delaware in three divisions. The right
wing, under Gates and Cadwalader, was to attack the Hessians under Donop
at Burlington; Ewing was to cross and attack the center at Trenton;
while Washington himself, with the left wing six miles up the river, was
to cross at that point and march down on the other side to attack the
British flank and rear. Gates had asked and been allowed to go to
Philadelphia, where he was already intriguing with Congress in order to
supplant Washington. The right wing and the center found the river,
filled as it was with floating ice, too difficult to cross, but
Washington’s determination and skill at once showed themselves.
=170. Battle of Trenton.=—Just as he was ready for the advance, news
came that his right and center had failed, and yet, without a moment’s
hesitation, he decided himself to push on with all the greater
energy.[79] Blocks of floating ice made the crossing next to impossible.
Colonel Glover, with a force of Marblehead fishermen, was put in charge
of the boats. In the course of ten hours he succeeded in taking
twenty-five hundred men across with their guns and munitions. They now
had six miles to march in a blinding storm. After a night so cold that
two men of their number were frozen to death, they reached Trenton at
daybreak. Planting their guns so as to rake the streets, they made
escape impossible. Colonel Rahl, of the enemy, and seventeen of his men
were killed; the others surrendered (December 26). Donop, fearing to be
cut off by the advance of Washington, fell back to Princeton. Washington
recrossed the river with his prisoners, but on the 29th took up his
position once more at Trenton. Thus the center of the British army was
destroyed.
=171. Advance of Cornwallis.=—Howe and Cornwallis, so rudely disturbed
in the midst of their Christmas festivities, saw in a moment that a blow
must be struck to recover the lost ground. With a force of about eight
thousand men, Cornwallis advanced by way of New Brunswick and Princeton,
where he established magazines and supplies, with a strong force to
guard them. The army, harassed along every mile of the way by
sharpshooters, reached Trenton on the 2d of January. Meanwhile
Washington had moved in a southern direction, and taken up his position
on the left bank of the Assanpink, a small stream flowing into the
Delaware on the north side, not far south of Trenton. The crossings were
guarded with such care that Cornwallis decided to allow his men, tired
from their rapid march, to rest until the following day. His plan was to
attack in front and along Washington’s right flank, and so force him
back upon the Delaware, where he would be obliged to surrender. After
observing the situation, Cornwallis went to bed in high spirits, saying,
“At last we have run down the old fox, and will bag him in the morning.”
=172. The Battle of Princeton.=—But in the morning the “old fox” was
gone. Ordering a force of men to keep fires burning along the front of
the camp, and to make a show of strengthening the breastworks,
Washington, with his main army, crossed the Assanpink, and passing
around the left flank of the British, fell upon the force at Princeton
at daybreak. The movement, brilliantly conceived and carefully planned,
was completely successful. The British force at Princeton, after losing
about five hundred men, was cut in two, one part retreating to New
Brunswick and the other falling back to Trenton. In this remarkable
fight (January 3, 1777) the American loss was less than one hundred.
=173. Retreat of Cornwallis.=—When Cornwallis found an empty camp
before him and heard the sound of cannon in the direction of Princeton,
he fell back at once, in order to protect his stores. At Princeton the
full meaning of the disaster was revealed. Washington, at no time strong
enough to risk a general battle, now contented himself with destroying
bridges, harassing the enemy at every point, and finally taking up a
commanding position on the heights of Morristown. To support himself on
either flank, he ordered Heath to come down from the highlands of the
Hudson to Hackensack, and Putnam to advance from Philadelphia to
Trenton. Conrwallis, finding himself thus confronted, withdrew to Paulus
Hook and New York. Thus, in the dead of winter, Washington, with a
greatly inferior force, had fought two successful battles, had taken
prisoners numbering more than a third of his whole army, and had
practically driven the British out of New Jersey. This campaign saved
the Revolution.
[Illustration: CONTINENTAL CURRENCY.]
=174. Influence of Washington’s Success.=—The influence of Washington’s
success was shown at once in many ways. In the first place it encouraged
men to reënlist. The period for which many of the recruits had gone into
the army had expired on the 1st of January. They had received very
little pay, and the paper money they got had now fallen greatly in
value. In the face of a defeat, few would have reëntered the service;
but for the payment of those who would reënlist, Washington pledged his
own fortune, and thus succeeded in keeping his army intact. Another
beneficial effect was shown in the influence exerted upon the British
army and the Tories. Large numbers of Hessians now deserted, in order to
avail themselves of the offers of land that had been made by Congress;
and many men of doubtful loyalty who, a few months before, had accepted
the pardon offered by Howe, now made patriotic response to the
counter-proclamation of Washington, requiring that they should either
retire to the British lines or take the oath of allegiance to the United
States.
[Illustration: MARQUIS DE LAFAYETTE.]
=175. Effects of the Campaign in Europe.=—But the most important result
of this remarkable winter campaign was its influence on the various
powers of Europe. Washington’s generalship called out the hearty
commendation of Frederick the Great. In France a still greater interest
was awakened. In the autumn of 1776 Franklin had been sent to Paris to
secure a treaty. The sympathies of Louis XVI. were with George III.;
but, on the other hand, the French people had hated England ever since
the fall of Quebec. Throughout France there was also beginning to be a
widespread revolutionary spirit. The disposition to recognize the
independence of the United States greatly increased as soon as there was
any probability of success. Though the French government still
hesitated, many brave officers, such as Lafayette[80] and De Kalb,
privately offered their services to the American cause. Lafayette, not
yet twenty years of age and just married, threw himself into the
enterprise with unlimited enthusiasm. He fitted out a ship at his own
expense, and, leaving wife and friends behind, devoted all his powers to
the new cause. Along with ten other officers, he arrived in America in
the spring of 1777.
=176. Reorganization of the American Army.=—Congress now reorganized
the army and conferred upon Washington powers that were practically
those of a dictator. It also called for an army of seventy-eight
thousand men, sixty-six thousand from the states and twelve thousand to
be raised by Washington and to be subject only to national control. But
as Congress had no power to enforce its laws, the full number of troops
called for was never provided. The army was, however, somewhat enlarged
in size and greatly improved in quality.
* * * * *
REFERENCES.—The same as at the end of Chapter VI.
-----
[67] Born, Westmoreland County, Virginia, February 22 (old style,
February 11), 1732; died, Mt. Vernon, Virginia, December 14, 1799.
Received only an elementary education; became a surveyor; served in
French and Indian War; became a prominent planter; favored the patriotic
cause; commander in chief, 1775–1783; presided over Convention of 1787;
President, 1789–1797; commander in chief of provisional army, 1798.
[68] Born, 1741; died, 1775. Graduated at Harvard and became physician
in Boston; member of committee of correspondence, 1774; a noted orator;
chairman of Committee of Public Safety and president of the
Massachusetts Provincial Congress in 1775; actively engaged in raising
volunteers in 1775; commissioned major general by the Provincial
Congress, but waived his rank in favor of the veteran Prescott, and
fought and died as a private soldier.
[69] Born, 1729; died, 1814. Served under Wolfe at Quebec; commander in
chief of British forces in America in 1775; was superseded by Sir Henry
Clinton in 1778, though he was knighted for his successes about New York
in 1776; was unsuccessful as a strategist, and noted for his indolence.
[70] To the president of Congress he wrote: “There must be some other
stimulus besides love of their country to make men fond of the service.”
And again he wrote: “Such a dearth of public virtue; such a
stock-jobbing and strife to obtain advantage of one kind and another, I
never saw before, and I pray God’s mercy I may never be witness to
again. I tremble at the prospect. Could I have foreknown what I have
experienced, no consideration upon earth could have induced me to accept
this command.”
[71] Born, 1741; died, 1801. At the outbreak of the war in 1775 left his
business in Connecticut to join the service; was commissioned colonel by
the Massachusetts Provincial Congress; acquired immediate fame by his
attack on Quebec; was advanced to brigadier general; was defeated by the
British at Valcour Island in Lake Champlain, October, 1776; made a
skillful retreat; took leading part in campaign against Burgoyne in
1777; was given command in Philadelphia, when he fell under the
influence of prominent Tories, one of whose daughters he married;
entered into correspondence under an assumed name with an officer of
Howe’s army; sought and obtained command of West Point for the purpose
of turning it over to the enemy; escaped to the British, from whom he
received a sum of money, a brigadier generalship in the army, and the
command of a force in Virginia. His last days were spent in England.
[72] Born, 1742; died, 1786. Member of the Rhode Island assembly in
1770; joined a military company in 1774; became brigadier general in
1775; major general in 1776; showed great military talents at Dorchester
Heights, Brooklyn, Trenton, Princeton, Brandywine, and Germantown;
succeeded Gates in the South, 1780, and by his strategic skill in
opposing Cornwallis and Lord Rawdon, cleared the South and drove
Cornwallis into the position which resulted in the surrender at
Yorktown. Washington regarded him as the most skillful of his generals,
and posterity has confirmed this judgment.
[73] Born, 1718; died, 1790. A noted ranger in the Indian Wars; served
at Bunker Hill; major general, 1775; commanded in defeat of Long Island,
1776, in Highlands of the Hudson, 1777, and in Connecticut, 1778–1779;
disabled by paralysis, 1779. Famed for fight with wolf, and for other
exploits.
[74] The American troops, notwithstanding the energetic threats of
Washington, acted in a very cowardly manner and offered little
resistance at Kipp’s Bay, and Howe had no difficulty in landing. Had he
pushed rapidly across Manhattan Island, Putnam’s army would inevitably
have been cut off. But Mrs. Lindley Murray, whose mansion stood on
Murray Hill, invited the British officers to refresh themselves with
luncheon, whereupon a halt was called, and they were detained for two
hours. During this time Putnam with his army of four thousand marched up
the west side of the island and soon joined Washington.
[75] Born, 1731; died, 1805. Member of Continental Congress from South
Carolina in 1775; defended Sullivan’s Island in 1776; defeated the
British at Beaufort and defended Charleston in 1779; was governor of
South Carolina in 1785 and 1794.
[76] Born, 1732; died, 1794. Educated in England; was a leader of the
Virginia House of Burgesses, 1761 to 1788; opposed the slave trade and
the Stamp Act; was one of the first to suggest the famous committees of
correspondence; was on the committee to draft the address of the First
Continental Congress; drafted the address of the Second Congress; moved
the Resolution of Independence; was very earnest in his opposition to
the adoption of the Federal Constitution in 1788; was a prominent
Anti-Federalist and United States senator, 1789 to 1792.
[77] Born, 1743; died, 1826. Graduated at William and Mary College;
became a lawyer and entered House of Burgesses in 1769; was active in
Revolutionary agitation as a writer rather than as a speaker; drafted
the instructions to the Virginia delegates and consequently was
proscribed by Great Britain; soon after drafting the Declaration of
Independence, left Congress to reënter Virginian politics, where as
governor and legislator he exerted much influence in securing reforms;
went to France as plenipotentiary in 1784; returned to America in 1789,
just after the adoption of the Constitution; became first Secretary of
State; wrote much to show his fears that the provisions of the
Constitution would end in monarchy; became Vice President, 1797–1801;
President, 1801–1809; retired to Monticello and founded the University
of Virginia.
[78] Born, 1706; died, 1790. Apprenticed in Boston as a printer, and
developed great fondness for reading and writing; ran away to
Philadelphia in 1723; established a newspaper in 1729; advanced rapidly
in prominence through his talents as a writer and success as a
scientific discoverer; was appointed Deputy Postmaster-general of the
British colonies in 1753; was the moving spirit of the Albany convention
in 1754; was agent for Pennsylvania in England from 1764 to the
Revolution; also for a part of the time agent for Massachusetts, New
Jersey, and Georgia; returning in 1775, was one of the committee to draw
up the Declaration of Independence; was sent to join Arthur Lee and
Silas Deane as Ministers to France in autumn of 1776; was received with
great enthusiasm in Paris, and obtained not only the Treaty of 1778, but
also large sums of money for the assistance of the colonies; played an
important part in negotiating the Treaty of 1783; was chosen president
of Pennsylvania in 1785, 1786, and 1787, and was an influential member
of the Federal Convention of 1787.
[79] One of Washington’s captains, in his memoirs, relates a feat which
illustrates Washington’s spirit, as well as his great physical strength.
He says that, as they were breaking camp for the march, two soldiers had
wound up Washington’s tent around the tent pole, and were trying in vain
to lift it to the top of a high, loaded wagon. Washington came along in
fiery impatience, and seeing their fruitless efforts, seized the pole in
the middle with one hand, and threw it far above his head upon the top
of the load.
[80] Born, September, 1757; died, May, 1834. French nobleman, whose
sympathy for the American colonies was early excited; landed in South
Carolina in the spring of 1777; was appointed major general in July,
1777; was wounded at Brandywine; served at Monmouth and in Rhode Island;
sat on court-martial which tried André; commanded with much skill in
Virginia against Arnold and Cornwallis in 1781; returned to France at
close of the war, but came to America for a short visit in 1784;
commanded the National Guard at the outbreak of the French Revolution in
1789; was removed by the Jacobins in 1792; escaped to Belgium, where he
was seized; was confined in Prussian and Austrian prisons till 1797;
remained in retirement during the Napoleonic régime; visited United
States in 1824–1825; commanded National Guard of France in the
Revolution of 1830.
[Illustration: GEORGE WASHINGTON.]
CHAPTER VIII.
=THE CAMPAIGN OF 1777.=
THE STRUGGLE FOR THE CENTER.
=177. Plans of the British for 1777.=—The British saw that if the next
campaign was to be successful the war must be pushed forward on a much
larger scale. They determined on three important movements. General Howe
was to be reënforced so that while holding New York he could open the
Hudson to Albany. From the north a new and more powerful expedition,
under General Burgoyne, was to repeat the attempt of Sir Guy Carleton. A
third expedition, under Colonel St. Leger, was to ascend the St.
Lawrence into Lake Ontario, and from Oswego, after taking Fort Stanwix
and clearing the Valley of the Mohawk, unite with Burgoyne and Howe in
the vicinity of Albany. This comprehensive plan, if successful, would
not only separate New England from the rest of the colonies, but would
restore to the British the State of New York.
[Illustration: GENERAL PHILIP SCHUYLER.]
=178. Burgoyne’s Difficulties and Disappointments.=—Burgoyne,[81]
ascending the St. Lawrence, entered Lake Champlain with about eight
thousand men, consisting partly of British veterans and partly of
Hessians. He had no difficulty in taking Fort Ticonderoga, for General
Gates in providing for its defense had committed the same blunder that
Howe had committed in neglecting Dorchester Heights (§ 149). On a high,
rocky point just south of the fort, General Phillips, one of Burgoyne's
officers, succeeded in planting siege guns; and Gates saw at once that
he must withdraw. But Burgoyne had no further success. He had expected
large reënforcements from the Tory inhabitants, but in this he was
disappointed. The preparations for meeting the British had been
admirably planned by General Philip Schuyler,[82] who was in command of
the Northern division of the army, with headquarters at Albany. His
policy was to impede the march of the enemy until the Americans had time
to gather strength. When Burgoyne began to press his way southward, he
found that trees had been felled across every road, and the best he
could do was to advance at the rate of only about a mile a day.
Meanwhile the inhabitants of the region round about were rising, and
sharpshooters began to harass him from every direction. When he reached
Whitehall he realized that he was in danger of failing for want of
provisions.
[Illustration: GENERAL JOHN STARK.]
=179. The Bennington Expedition.=—Hearing that the Americans had large
stores at Bennington, Burgoyne now sent a force of about one thousand
men, under two Hessian officers, Baum and Breymann, to capture them. The
news of the expedition spread rapidly, and hundreds of patriots flocked
to the defense. Among them was “good” Parson Allen, of Pittsfield,
Massachusetts, who led an eager company from the Berkshire Hills. They
were commanded by General John Stark,[83] who had already distinguished
himself in the old French War, and at Bunker Hill, at Trenton, and at
Princeton. With his reënforcements, Stark’s command now outnumbered
Baum’s by two to one. Baum, seeing that resistance was to be offered,
drew up his troops on high ground near the town and awaited an attack.
On the morning of August 16, Stark stealthily threw a part of his men
into the rear, while in front he led the attack in person. The Germans,
thinking the troops in the rear were those “blessed” Tories they had
been looking for, were thrown into confusion on the first attack from
front and rear, and were soon forced to surrender. Baum was mortally
wounded, and Breymann, on his way to the support of Baum, was met and
defeated by a force under General Seth Warner. This exploit, one of the
most brilliant of the war, cost the British two hundred and seven killed
and wounded, and more than seven hundred prisoners, besides four
field-pieces and a thousand stand of arms. The loss of the Americans
amounted to forty killed and forty-two wounded.
=180. General Schuyler Superseded.=—There was much jealousy between New
England and New York, and much consequent intrigue. General Gates had
long been scheming with Congress for his own advancement. He and his
friends were now able to point out what the people of New England could
do at Bennington, as contrasted with what General Schuyler had been able
to do in New York. The result of the intrigue was that General Schuyler
was removed and Gates was placed in command in his stead.
[Illustration: GENERAL JOHN BURGOYNE.]
=181. Movements of Burgoyne.=—No general change of policy resulted from
Schuyler’s removal. Burgoyne, finding himself in danger of being hemmed
in at Whitehall, was forced to move toward the west and across the
Hudson. Lincoln, with the New England militia, closed in on his rear,
while Putnam arrived with a force from the Highlands and Arnold returned
from the Valley of the Mohawk, where he had aided in repulsing St.
Leger. It became daily more evident that unless relief should arrive
from General Howe, Burgoyne must either defeat the Americans or
surrender his whole army. No reënforcements came, and two vigorous
attempts at Freeman’s Farm and Bemis Heights were frustrated by the
skill and vigor of the troops commanded by Arnold and Morgan. The source
of supplies for the British was now cut off; and, attempting to retreat
by way of Saratoga, Burgoyne found his army completely surrounded by a
force more than twice the size of his own. On the 17th of October he was
obliged to capitulate, and surrendered with his entire force of more
than seven thousand men.
Burgoyne demanded, and Gates consented, that the final act should be
deemed a “convention” instead of a surrender or capitulation. Hence
British historians are accustomed to refer to the event as the
“Convention of Saratoga.” The terms, however, were not essentially
different. The troops were allowed to march out with the honors of war,
and to march to Boston, where they were to embark for home. An oath was
required that they would not again serve in the American war. But a
misunderstanding soon ensued, and Congress repudiated the convention, in
consequence of which Burgoyne and his army were not sent home, but
retained as prisoners. Burgoyne, however, was permitted to go in the
following spring. He soon entered Parliament and became a stanch
defender of the American cause. The army was transferred to a camp at
Charlottesville, Virginia. Before 1783 they had dispersed and many had
settled in different parts of the country.
=182. St. Leger’s Campaign.=—St. Leger fared scarcely better in his
Western campaign. Advancing early in the spring from Oswego, he reached,
on August 3, Fort Stanwix, an important point in Oneida County, now the
city of Rome. He at once began the siege. A few days later a force of
about eight hundred militia, gathered in the Mohawk Valley by General
Herkimer, a veteran of the French war, advanced for the relief of the
fort. Near Oriskany, however, his force fell into an ambuscade prepared
by Sir John Johnson, the leader of the Tories, and Brant, the greatest
of Mohawk chiefs. The battle was not decisive, but the confidence of the
Indians and Tories was completely broken, and the Indians rapidly
deserted. General Herkimer, severely wounded, died some days
afterward.[84] The panic of the British was increased by the approach of
a force under Arnold, which had been sent from Albany by Schuyler. St.
Leger, attacked by a vigorous sortie from the fort on the one side, and
by the surrounding patriots on the other, saw no chance of success, and
accordingly beat a hasty retreat.[85] Thus both the British expeditions
in the North were complete failures.
=183. Blunder of the British Government.=—It had been the design of the
British government that General Howe, while holding New York with a part
of his force, should ascend the Hudson with the other part for the
reënforcement of Burgoyne; but the British minister of war, instead of
sending peremptory orders, left much to the discretion of Howe.[86] This
gave an opportunity for the scheming designs of General Lee, who was
still a prisoner of war in the hands of the British. Lee had formerly
been an officer in the British army, and Howe had serious thoughts of
hanging him for desertion; but Washington wrote to Howe that he held
five Hessian officers, whom he should treat as hostages for Lee. The
British, thereupon, not daring to risk the anger of the Hessians that
would surely follow an execution, concluded to hold Lee simply as
prisoner of war, subject to exchange. But Lee, meantime, hoping to gain
the favor of Great Britain, drew up an elaborate plan, advising the
British in regard to the best method of assuring success. This
treasonable paper, indorsed as “Mr. Lee’s plan, March 29, 1777,” was not
discovered until eighty years after the war.
=184. General Lee’s Advice.=—The advice of Lee was that Howe direct all
his energies to an attack upon Philadelphia; and accordingly, as soon as
the British commander heard of the success of Burgoyne in taking
Ticonderoga, he decided to adopt this plan. His first purpose was, while
leaving New York in command of a small force, to advance with the
greater part of his army across New Jersey. But Washington, detecting
his purpose, threw up strong intrenchments at Middlebrook, directly
athwart his path. Howe thought it not prudent either to attack directly,
or, by marching around, to leave his opponent in the rear. After nearly
two months of unsuccessful effort to bring Washington to battle, he
changed his plan, and about the middle of July withdrew his army to
Staten Island.
=185. Movements of Howe.=—It became evident at once to Washington that
Howe’s purpose was to put his force upon a fleet and either ascend the
Hudson or sail to the south. The American commander was not left very
long in doubt. Leaving eighteen hundred men under Sir Henry Clinton in
New York, Howe put to sea. Washington at once inferred that Howe had
gone south, but it was necessary to guard against the possibility of his
turning suddenly northward and advancing up the Hudson. On account of
supposed obstacles in the Delaware below Philadelphia, Howe passed on
one hundred miles farther, into Chesapeake Bay, and landed his army at
Elkton. Hearing of Howe’s arrival, Washington turned south to meet him.
In order to prevent a panic in Philadelphia, he marched his army of
eleven thousand men through the city.
=186. Battle of the Brandywine.=—It was evident that Howe would advance
upon Philadelphia without delay. Though Washington had only eleven
thousand men with whom to meet Howe’s eighteen thousand, he decided to
contest the advance in a battle. Accordingly the Americans were posted
along the north bank of Brandywine Creek, with their center at Chadd’s
Ford. The position was admirably chosen, and the forces were skillfully
posted. But the British decided to force the passage by means of a flank
movement. On the morning of September 11, Cornwallis, who commanded the
British left, marched up the river some eighteen miles by the Lancaster
road and crossed at Jeffrey’s Ford, intending to pass around and attack
the Americans in the rear. The success of such a movement depended upon
its secrecy. Washington, fortunately, learned of the operation in time
to order Sullivan to change his front and meet Cornwallis as he
approached. But for this discovery the Americans would undoubtedly have
been routed and a large part of the army captured. Sullivan fought with
great bravery and skill, but he was not able to repulse the enemy. In
order to support Sullivan the whole American army fell back, but it fell
back in good order, chiefly through the masterly skill of Greene. The
Americans lost a little more than a thousand, and the loss of the
British was about six hundred. The skill of the Americans in the retreat
was shown by the fact that Washington opposed the advance of the British
so vigorously that fifteen days were consumed by Howe in a march of
twenty-six miles to the city. On September 26 the British moved into
Philadelphia. Cornwallis was left in command of the city, while Howe
established his headquarters at the adjacent village of Germantown.
=187. Needs of the British; Battle of Germantown.=—As the American army
had not been crippled, it was easy for Washington to cut off the
supplies of his enemy on the landward side. The British were therefore
dependent upon vessels from the sea. To clear the river of obstructions
a force was at once sent from Philadelphia. Washington determined to
take advantage of this advance and to attack the main army at
Germantown, while the British were thus temporarily weakened. Such
extraordinary audacity on the part of an army which had just been
defeated seems never to have entered the minds of the British. But on
the evening of the 3d of October, Washington began his march, with the
purpose of nothing less than the destruction or capture of Howe’s force.
The town was to be approached by four roads, the army consisting of two
divisions, under Greene and Sullivan. The advance arrived at the
outskirts of the village at daybreak, but unfortunately a heavy fog came
up, so that it was impossible for the different lines to recognize one
another. The Americans advanced successfully in four different columns
and seemed likely to push the British back upon the river and completely
overwhelm them; but, in the center of the field, one of the brigades of
General Greene’s division came into collision with one from that of
General Sullivan. Each, supposing the enemy had been met, fired upon the
other.[87] A confusion resulted which gave the British time to recover,
and the Americans were finally repulsed. This battle is universally
considered as one of the boldest fought by the Americans, and it came
wonderfully near to complete success. Howe and Cornwallis were now left
for the winter in Philadelphia, while Washington took up his winter
quarters at Valley Forge, only a few miles away, where he could prevent
the British from foraging the country.
* * * * *
REFERENCES.—The same as at the end of Chapter VI.
-----
[81] Born, 1723; died, 1792. Member of the House of Commons and
lieutenant general in the army; served in Canada early in the war;
returned to England after the “Convention” at Saratoga; published _State
of the Expedition_, in 1780; published a number of poems and comedies of
some temporary note.
[82] Born, 1733; died, 1804. Fought in French and Indian War; was member
of the First Continental Congress; was included in the first list of
major generals in 1775; was assigned to department of northern New York;
was superseded by Gates; resigned in 1779, but continued to be a trusted
adviser of Washington, and was appointed Indian commissioner; was United
States senator, 1789–1791 and 1797–1798.
[83] Born, 1728; died, 1822. After the service briefly indicated in the
text, he resigned in 1777; was demanded as leader by the New Hampshire
militia at the time of Burgoyne’s invasion; was advanced to the grade of
brigadier general and served till the end of the war.
[84] After General Herkimer was wounded, he had himself placed at the
foot of a tree, where he continued to issue commands with stentorian
voice. At the close of the battle he was taken to his house, about
thirty-five miles away, and died after an unskillful operation. A tall
granite obelisk was erected to his memory, near the site of this battle.
[85] The repulse of St. Leger and the relief of Fort Stanwix possess
peculiar interest from the fact that on that spot and on that day
(August 6, 1777) the American flag, substantially as we now know it, was
first raised. Congress had adopted the national flag in June, 1777.
After a sortie which had been successful in driving back the besieging
force of St. Leger, Colonel Willett, the patriot in command, hoisted a
captured British flag, and put over it a rude banner of stars and
stripes hastily patched together from a white shirt, a blue jacket, and
a red flannel petticoat of a soldier’s wife.
[86] While the state of the country and the roads made it impossible for
the British divisions to support, or even communicate with, each other,
the Americans, working from within, could strike in either direction,
wherever the blow would be the most effective. As the bodies of British
troops were to work from without, toward a common center, it was of the
highest importance to them that each should be under specific orders
when and how to move. This was understood by the British ministry, but
for some reason long unaccountable, Howe received no specific orders
whatever. Such an order was really made, but when it had been prepared
for the signature of the British minister of war, Lord George Germain,
he petulantly objected to the clerical work, and ordered that a fair
copy should be made. That night the minister went to his country seat,
and the copy was placed in a pigeonhole to await his return. It was
forgotten until long after Burgoyne surrendered. The delayed order
directed Howe to ascend the Hudson and coöperate with Burgoyne.
[87] Stephen, whose brigade fired upon that of Wayne, was tried by
court-martial and dismissed from the service.
CHAPTER IX.
=THE FRENCH ALLIANCE AND THE CAMPAIGNS OF 1778 AND 1779.=
A WINTER OF DISCOURAGEMENT.
=188. Change in the Commissariat of the Army.=—Nearly a year before the
close of the campaigns just described, Congress had very unwisely
determined to make a change in the control of the commissariat of the
army. Up to this time it had been a part of the military service and had
been successfully managed by Colonel Trumbull; but it was now decided to
appoint two officers,—one for procuring the supplies, and another for
distributing them. This system of divided responsibility caused the
greatest discomfort to the army.
=189. The Winter at Valley Forge.=—Washington’s force, in its winter
quarters at Valley Forge, was subjected to terrible suffering. On the
22d of December two brigades became mutinous, because for three days
they had gone without bread and for two days without meat. On the
following day Washington informed Congress that he had in camp two
thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight men “unfit for duty because they
are barefooted and otherwise naked.” Even when his army first marched
into winter quarters, their route could be traced on the snow by the
blood that oozed from their bare and frost-bitten feet; and matters grew
worse as the winter advanced. This condition was not owing to any actual
want of supplies, for it was afterward found that “hogsheads of shoes,
stockings, and clothing were lying at different places on the roads and
in the woods, perishing for want of teams or of money to pay the
teamsters.” It was in consequence of gross mismanagement on the part of
the commissariat, that the winter at Valley Forge was one of such
memorable suffering and death.
[Illustration: THE MIDDLE ATLANTIC STATES]
[Illustration: BARON VON STEUBEN.]
=190. The Coming of Baron von Steuben.=—But the winter, sad as it was
in most respects, brought one great advantage. Agents in Europe
succeeded in persuading one of the most efficient soldiers from the
staff of Frederick the Great to offer his experience to the American
cause. This was Baron von Steuben.[88] He had gone through every grade
of the Prussian service up to the rank of marshal, and his knowledge of
military drill caused him to be appointed inspector general of the
American armies. It would be difficult to overestimate the value of his
services. He found the raw American troops completely unaccustomed to
the exact military methods of Europe, and he set himself to teach them
all the arts and methods of the regular soldier. Taking a musket in his
hand, this Prussian officer of highest rank devoted himself from morning
till night to the most elementary, as well as the most intricate, parts
of military drill. Thus, in the course of the terrible winter at Valley
Forge, Baron von Steuben brought the army into a condition of efficiency
it had never known before.
=191. General Causes of Discontent.=—During this winter there were
numerous matters that occasioned great anxiety. It is at the present
time easy to see that Washington’s plan of conducting the war was the
only one that gave any promise of success. But it was one that could be
easily misunderstood and misrepresented. It was possible for unfriendly
critics to say that he had been driven from New York; that he had lost
Philadelphia; and that he had been defeated in two important battles. It
was also easy to overlook the far more important fact that he had kept
his army intact, and that he had managed to fight and to avoid fighting
in such a way as to keep the enemy occupied at the center so that the
great object of the British campaign, the opening of the Hudson, was
completely frustrated.
[Illustration: GENERAL HORATIO GATES.]
=192. Intrigues of Gates and Others.=—The country was not lacking in
people who were ready to seize upon opportunities for slander and
intrigue. John Hancock, the first president of Congress, had been
ambitious for the position of commander in chief, and, as many charged,
had, in consequence of his failure to obtain that office, resigned his
presidency in disgust. The impetuous Samuel Adams, and even John Adams,
had uttered loud complaints over what was called the “Fabian policy,”
and had clamored for a short and decisive war. The success of the
Northern army had enabled Gates,[89] who was the arch-intriguer of the
time, to present his claims with some show of plausibility. By
distributing promises throughout the army he created a widespread
sentiment in behalf of Washington’s removal and his own appointment. His
friends sent letters from every quarter to members of Congress,
representing that before Gates had commanded the army of the North,
Burgoyne had had uninterrupted success, and that immediately after
Gates’s appointment the coils were rapidly thrown about the British
commander until he was compelled to surrender. Of course no mention was
made of the fact that the victory at Bennington was solely due to Stark
and his New England volunteers; that the repulse of St. Leger was due to
Herkimer and Arnold; and that the two victories over Burgoyne were due
chiefly to the vigor and skill of Arnold and Morgan.
=193. The Conway Cabal.=—The most conspicuous manager of the intrigue
was an Irish-American officer, by the name of Conway, who had not been
promoted by Washington as rapidly as he had desired. Congress,
notwithstanding the opposition of Washington, was disposed to advance
Conway and a number of other subordinate officers. Washington did not
hesitate to express his disapproval, and even went so far as to say, “It
will be impossible for me to be of any further service if such
insuperable difficulties are thrown in my way.” This was very justly
interpreted as a threat to resign, and it was effective. But the anger
of Conway toward Washington was naturally increased. The intrigues that
followed have passed into history as the “Conway Cabal.” The only
success of the movement was to induce Congress to reorganize the “Board
of War” and make Gates its president. Public sentiment was so
overwhelmingly favorable to Washington, that Congress ventured to go no
farther. Extracts from some of the letters were published and thus the
whole spirit of the intrigue was revealed. The scornful silence of
Washington, who never in his life condescended to defend himself,
reacted greatly in his favor. In the end, the commander in chief was
stronger in his position than ever. Gates resigned in disgust and
returned to his plantation in Virginia.
PROSPECTS BRIGHTEN.
=194. Treaty with France.=—America had now single-handedly carried on
the war for more than two years, but the defeat of Burgoyne and St.
Leger in the North, and the vigor with which Washington conducted the
campaign in New Jersey and about Philadelphia, convinced the French that
the time for recognition had arrived. Treaties were signed on February
6, 1778, between France and the United States, in which France pledged
herself to furnish ships, as well as men, and the Americans, on their
part, agreed not to cease the conflict until Great Britain acknowledged
their independence. Thereafter England was at war with France, as well
as with America.
=195. Howe succeeded by Sir Henry Clinton.=—The French alliance obliged
the British to change their plan of action. Howe, who had never believed
in the British policy, now resigned and returned to England, and Sir
Henry Clinton succeeded him in command. Anticipating the approach of the
French fleet, and evidently fearing that the French and Americans
together would prove too strong for the British at New York, Clinton
decided to evacuate Philadelphia. Washington, whose army,
notwithstanding the sufferings at Valley Forge, showed the effects of
the careful drilling by Baron von Steuben, determined to attack the
British on their northern march.
=196. The Battle of Monmouth.=—The place chosen was Monmouth, and the
battle took place on Sunday, the 28th of June. The northern portion of
the American force was ordered to attack the British on their flank,
while Washington himself, by closing in upon their rear with the
southern division, hoped to overwhelm them. General Charles Lee, whose
treason was still unknown to Washington, had been exchanged, and, as
senior major general, had command of the northern portion of the army,
consisting of about six thousand men. Washington ordered him to attack
Clinton’s flank with vigor, while the commander in chief himself, with a
still larger force, was to attack at the moment when the enemy had been
thrown into confusion. Lee, however, on reaching the British, made only
a feeble show of advance and then ordered his troops to withdraw.
Washington, informed of the situation by a messenger from Lafayette,
rushed forward in furious anger and demanded an explanation. As no
satisfactory reason for his retreat could be given, Washington ordered
Lee to the rear, and, galloping along the disordered mass of retreating
troops, shouted for a halt, and then reformed the lines. The results of
the winter’s drill were at once felt, for in the face of the enemy and
under a hard fire the American troops fell into order, wheeled about,
and rushed forward to a new attack. The British were driven from the
ground they had gained; but night came on, and the two armies occupied
the positions held before the battle. Before morning the British resumed
their way to New York.[90] After the battle, Lee was tried by a
court-martial, consisting of several of the most eminent officers in the
army, and was dismissed from the service.
=197. First Efforts of the French.=—The first efforts of the French to
assist the Americans were not fortunate. Count D’Estaing, a kinsman of
Lafayette, arrived on the 8th of July with a squadron of twelve ships of
the line and six frigates, and a land force on board of four thousand
men. His fleet was larger than that of Clinton; but as two of his
vessels could not cross the New York bar, he was not strong enough to
venture an attack. The next movement was an effort to coöperate with the
land force of General Sullivan in reducing Newport, Rhode Island. This
point had been taken by the British soon after their expulsion from
Boston, and had been held to the present time. Sullivan now approached
with a large force from the land side, and D’Estaing was to prevent
reënforcements by sea. It appeared certain that the post would be taken.
But soon Lord Howe approached with his fleet, and D’Estaing moved out
for action. In the nick of time one of the most terrific storms ever
known came on and dispersed both fleets. D’Estaing felt compelled to put
into Boston for repairs. While he was there word came that Clinton had
sent five thousand men to relieve the Newport garrison. Lafayette
galloped seventy miles in seven hours to obtain aid from D’Estaing, but
it was too late. The siege had to be raised, and soon D’Estaing moved
off to the West Indies. These movements of the French were very severely
criticised by the Americans, and in consequence, at one time the French
admiral thought seriously of taking his fleet back to France in disgust.
It was only the great tact and skill of Washington that persuaded him to
remain. His going to the West Indies was not without importance, for
Clinton felt obliged to send five thousand troops for the support of the
British in the islands.
[Illustration: GENERAL ANTHONY WAYNE.]
=198. British Movement on the South.=—The efforts thus far made to
destroy the revolutionary army by striking at its center having failed,
the British determined in the spring of 1779 upon a new policy. It was
decided to attack the South, partly for the purpose of bringing the
Southern states completely under their control, and partly for the
purpose of drawing off a portion of Washington’s army. In the execution
of this plan they had no difficulty in overrunning Georgia and South
Carolina, but Washington understood perfectly well that the temporary
loss of the Southern states would not mean the loss of the cause if the
Middle states and New England could be kept together. He therefore
refused to weaken his grip upon the Hudson. In July, General Anthony
Wayne[91] took by storm the seemingly impregnable position at Stony
Point on the Hudson, in one of the most brilliant assaults of the war.
His fearless dash, which was made at midnight, caused him to be known as
“Mad Anthony.”
CONDITIONS WEST OF THE ALLEGHANIES.
=199. British Control in the West.=—At the outbreak of the war the vast
region west of the mountains was already the field of much strife
between the Indians and the few settlers that had pushed their way along
the valleys into what was then the far West. The territory between the
mountains and the Mississippi River, a region twice as large as the
German Empire, was still an almost unbroken wilderness. French
settlements had been established at Detroit, at Vincennes on the Wabash,
and at Natchez, Kaskaskia, and Cahokia on the Mississippi. But these
fortified hamlets since the fall of Quebec had been controlled by
British garrisons. Though the region was thus under British dominion, it
was claimed by Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Virginia, Maryland,
North and South Carolina, and Georgia by authority of their original
charters. The possession of the whole region was therefore involved in
the war.
[Illustration: WAYNE’S DISPATCH TO WASHINGTON.]
=200. Settlements in Tennessee and Kentucky.=—Virginia and North
Carolina were the first to send explorers and settlers into this distant
region. Before the outbreak of the war, Daniel Boone[92] had explored
the Kentucky Kiver, and Virginia surveyors had gone down the Ohio as far
as the present site of Louisville, which was soon after named in honor
of our new ally, the reigning king of France, Louis XVI. Virginians
entered the country as settlers, and their sympathy with the
revolutionary movement was so intense that they named one of their
principal towns Lexington, in honor of the village where the first shots
had been fired. The pioneers of most influence in Tennessee were James
Robertson and John Sevier, who played a part as explorers and organizers
much like the parts played by Daniel Boone and James Harrod in Kentucky.
In both of these regions laws were enacted and courts instituted, and
when the Continental Congress met, delegates were sent to it to
represent the interests of the new settlements. The one was called the
State of Transylvania and the other the County of Kentucky.
[Illustration: DANIEL BOONE.]
=201. Border Warfare.=—The early years of these settlements were
periods of constant hardship and of strife with the Indians. Even before
the Revolutionary War broke out, the Indians organized for systematic
resistance. This was the result partly of outrageous treatment by the
white settlers, and partly of repeated Indian depredations.
=202. Lord Dunmore’s War.=—Lord Dunmore, the last royal governor of
Virginia, sent out in 1773 an injudicious order which led to an outbreak
of hostilities all along the line. The immediate cause of the war was
the fiendish act of a wretch by the name of Greathouse, who decoyed the
family of the friendly Indian chief, Logan, consisting of nine men,
women, and children, into his rum shop, and after getting them
intoxicated, butchered them all in cold blood. The justly outraged
Indians rushed to arms from all quarters. The war which followed was
characterized by the murdering of women and children and the burning of
cabins and wigwams, until it was ended by the decisive battle of Point
Pleasant on the Great Kanawha, on October 10, 1774. The Indians,
commanded by the Shawnee chief, Cornstalk, were utterly defeated by the
settlers under Andrew Lewis, and were glad to secure peace by
surrendering all their claims to lands south of the Ohio.
=203. Warfare in Tennessee.=—The westward movement from North Carolina
through the Great Smoky Mountains into the country now known as
Tennessee was also the occasion of numerous conflicts. In 1770 the
settlers had reached the Watauga. Forts were erected, and the settlement
soon assumed a thriving condition. But conflicts were not long
postponed. The most warlike and powerful of the Southern tribes of
Indians were the Cherokees, and on the outbreak of the Revolution they
took sides with the British. The Indians even advanced into South
Carolina and Georgia; but they were unable to hold their ground, and
when in 1776 they attacked the Watauga settlement, they were so
completely defeated by the troops of Robertson and Sevier that they soon
afterward were willing to make peace. In 1777 they renounced the larger
part of their claims to lands between the Tennessee and the Cumberland.
Thus Tennessee, as well as Kentucky, was secure for the future Union.
=204. Organization of Tories and Indians in the Northwest.=—Meanwhile
matters of no less importance were occurring on the northwest frontier.
Washington fully understood the necessity of taking from the British as
much as possible of that vast territory which extends from the Catskills
to the Mississippi River, and which had been made a part of Canada by
the Quebec Act (§ 136). This was by no means an easy task. The Six
Nations (§ 3), constituting the most powerful Indian confederation ever
known, were under the immediate leadership of the greatest of all Indian
chiefs, Joseph Brant, and under the influence of Sir John Johnson, the
most formidable of the Tories. Brant had been liberally educated in Mr.
Wheelock’s School, afterward Dartmouth College, and had even visited
England and had dined with Burke and Sheridan; but his education seemed
only to sharpen his wits and make him the better able to use the
characteristics of other Indians. Though he exerted his influence to
prevent the killing of women and children, as a strategist he was
unequaled among savages, and on the battlefield he could out-yell any
other chief. Throughout the West the Indians had generally combined with
the Tories and the British. Two forces were now organized, one at
Niagara and one at Detroit, for carrying out their designs.
=205. The Wyoming and Cherry Valley Massacres.=—In the summer of 1778
twelve hundred Tories and Iroquois, led by John Butler, advanced
stealthily from Niagara toward the southeast and fell upon the peaceful
inhabitants of the Wyoming Valley in Pennsylvania. Hundreds of innocent
inhabitants were tortured and scalped, and the horrors of the massacre
sent a pang into all parts of the civilized world. Similar outrages
occurred at Cherry Valley and elsewhere, and every settlement was in
danger. Prisoners who refused to give information were put to torture
with ingenious cruelty.
=206. Sullivan’s Expedition.=—In order to destroy the power of the Six
Nations and put an end to this savage method of warfare, Washington
decided to send out a strong force in the summer of 1779. The command of
the expedition, having been declined by Gates, devolved upon
Sullivan,[93] who had orders to lay waste the entire country of the
Iroquois. The right wing of his army, under General James Clinton,
advanced up the valley of the Mohawk, while Sullivan himself, with a
force of about five thousand men, pushed into the valley of the
Susquehanna. Both forces destroyed the Indian villages and the growing
crops wherever they went. Finally, meeting the united forces of Johnson,
Butler, and Brant near Newtown (now Elmira), Sullivan achieved a
complete victory, August 29.[94]
[Illustration: GENERAL JOHN SULLIVAN.]
=207. Destruction of the Six Nations.=—Sullivan’s forces then advanced
northward in two divisions, burning villages, cutting down fruit trees,
and destroying the growing corn in all directions. After a successful
march of more than seven hundred miles, during which he not only
temporarily, but permanently, through his destruction of their harvests,
broke the power of the Six Nations, Sullivan reached New Jersey in
October. The suffering which resulted to the Indians from this
expedition was greatly increased by the intense cold of the following
winter.[95] The horrors of the period, however, cannot be understood
without a study of painful and revolting details. In no part of the
country was the suffering greater than in central and eastern New York
during this contest of Indians, Tories, and patriots. In Tryon County
the population was reduced to one-third of its former number, and among
those who remained there are said to have been three hundred widows and
two thousand orphans.
THE CONQUEST OF THE NORTHWEST.
[Illustration: GENERAL GEORGE ROGERS CLARK.]
=208. George Rogers Clark.=—An expedition of even greater importance
had been undertaken the previous year, still farther west, by George
Rogers Clark.[96] Colonel Hamilton, commander of the British at Detroit,
had planned a series of movements with the intention of taking
possession of the whole western region north of the Ohio. Clark, a
Virginian who had settled in Kentucky, had become thoroughly acquainted
with frontier manners and methods. In the autumn of 1777, he learned of
Burgoyne’s surrender. Divining the importance of the West, he at once
sent scouts throughout the region known as the Illinois country. As a
result of the information thus received, this adventurous frontiersman,
only twenty-five years old, formed the bold project of conquering from
the British the whole of the vast region extending from the Alleghanies
to the Mississippi.
=209. Clark’s Expedition.=—Accordingly, having secured permission from
the authorities of Virginia, Clark, taking a force of one hundred and
eighty men, with boats and artillery, started in the spring of 1778, at
Pittsburg, for a voyage down the river to the junction of the Ohio and
Mississippi. He had no difficulty in capturing Kaskaskia, a small post
not very far north of the modern Cairo. Thence he sent messengers to
Vincennes, which agreed to submit to him. Later, however, he learned
that the British under Colonel Hamilton had retaken the fort. Sending
his cannon on a boat to patrol the Ohio and the Wabash, Clark took his
men across Illinois in a winter’s march, often through mud and water
knee deep, and appeared before Vincennes. The village at once yielded,
and the people united with Clark in assaulting the fort. Hamilton was
soon obliged to surrender with his whole force. By this brilliant
expedition, the frontier was extended to the Mississippi River. The
importance of the movement could hardly be understood at the time, but
the history of the next hundred years revealed it in many very
interesting ways.
THE VICTORIES OF PAUL JONES.
=210. Early Condition of the Navy.=—Before the war the Americans had no
navy, for there was no national government, and the individual colonies,
under the Navigation Acts, had no opportunities for the development of
foreign trade. Soon after the outbreak of hostilities, however, Congress
provided for arming vessels, not so much to fight the British warships
as to prey upon British commerce. Franklin, as minister to France after
1778, was authorized by Congress to commission vessels to scour the
waters for British prizes.
[Illustration: CAPTAIN JOHN PAUL JONES.]
=211. The Bon Homme Richard.=—The most famous of these cruisers was a
merchant ship that had been hastily fitted up for war and given the name
of _Bon Homme Richard_. This vessel, commanded by John Paul Jones,[97] a
Scotchman who had renounced his country and lived some years in America,
made havoc among the British merchantmen, especially in the British and
Irish Channels and off the east coast of Scotland. On the 23d of
September, 1779, Jones, with two small accompanying vessels, met the
British frigate _Serapis_, with similar support, convoying a small fleet
of merchantmen, off Flamborough Head. The _Serapis_ was slightly more
powerful than the _Richard_, but Jones did not hesitate to attack, and
the result was one of the most obstinate and bloody battles in all naval
history. Jones received no assistance from his attendant ships, which
even fired into the _Richard_. After both ships had been partially
disabled, Jones ran alongside the _Serapis_ and lashed them together.
From that moment a terrible battle with canister, musket balls, hand
grenades, and cutlasses went on, until more than half of all the men
engaged were either killed or disabled. The _Serapis_ finally
surrendered, but it was immediately found that the _Richard_ had been so
riddled with shot that it was sinking, and Jones therefore was obliged
to transfer his men to the other vessel. A few hours later the _Richard_
went down.
=212. Importance of Jones’s Victory.=—This desperate naval battle was
important for two reasons: first, it everywhere gave the Americans a
reputation as sailors; and secondly, it led to an important
international dispute. Jones took the _Serapis_ into a port in Holland.
The British at once demanded that the commander of the _Richard_ should
be given up to be tried as a pirate. The Dutch refused, on the ground
that Jones had done only what the British had long been doing. This,
with some other complications, led to war between Holland and Great
Britain. The English, in consequence, were then at war with Holland, as
well as with America and France. Spain was also drawn in as the ally of
France. Russia had long been apparently on the point of joining in the
contest, but the Empress Catherine, before taking a final step, wrote a
personal letter of inquiry to Frederick the Great, who advised her to
keep out of the trouble. Thus England, left without a single ally, found
herself confronted by three of the most powerful naval forces of
continental Europe. The united fleets of France and Spain, even without
the help of Holland, were scarcely weaker than the British fleet, and
they at once threatened, while the English were occupied in America, not
only to destroy the commerce of England in the open seas, but also to
recover Gibraltar, and to overwhelm all the English possessions in the
West Indies. The influence of these alliances on the American war may be
inferred from the fact that while in 1779 the British had three hundred
and fourteen thousand men under arms, not a tenth of that number were at
any time in America.
* * * * *
REFERENCES.—The same as at the end of Chapter VI.
-----
[88] Born in Magdeburg, Prussia, 1730; died, 1794. Fought in the war of
the Austrian Succession, also throughout the Seven Years’ War; received
a very exalted position from Frederick the Great, which he gave up in
1778 for service in America; was appointed inspector general, and
rendered invaluable service at Valley Forge and elsewhere in drilling
the American troops; commanded the left wing at Monmouth; was member of
the board which condemned André; settled in central New York at the
close of the war, and received from Congress a large grant of land near
Utica.
[89] Born in England, 1728; died, 1806. Was captain in Braddock’s
Expedition; was appointed adjutant general in the colonial army in 1775;
superseded Schuyler as commander of the Northern forces in 1777;
conspired to gain the chief command in 1778; placed in command of the
Southern army in 1780; was overwhelmingly defeated at Camden; was
retired from command, and was not acquitted by court-martial till 1782.
[90] The effect of the evacuation of Philadelphia and the battle of
Monmouth was naturally very disheartening to the British army. As many
as two thousand of Clinton’s soldiers, chiefly Hessians, deserted within
a week.
[91] Born, 1745; died, 1796. Early became a member of the Pennsylvania
Committee of Public Safety, and commander of a regiment in the Canadian
invasion of 1775–1776; commanded at Ticonderoga; was appointed brigadier
general, and rendered valuable service at the Brandywine, at Germantown,
and at Monmouth; stormed Stony Point, July 15, 1779; suppressed mutiny
at Morristown in January, 1781; rendered important service in Georgia
and Virginia in 1781–1782; was made major general, and overwhelmed the
Indians at Fallen Timbers, 1794, which led to a treaty of peace with the
Indians in 1795.
[92] Born, 1735; died, 1820. Was a daring and skillful hunter and
explorer in North Carolina; went into the region that is now Kentucky in
1769; became exceptionally skillful as an Indian fighter; overwhelmed
the Indians at the battle of Blue Licks in 1782; after countless
adventures and hairbreadth escapes, passed his last days in poverty in
Missouri, though a grant of land was tardily given him by Congress.
[93] Born in New Hampshire, 1740; died, 1795. Major general of militia
before the war; delegate of New Hampshire to First Continental Congress;
was appointed brigadier general in 1775; served at siege of Boston and
in expedition into Canada; major general in 1776; was one of the
principal commanders at Brooklyn, Trenton, and Princeton; led the right
wing at Brandywine and Germantown; destroyed the power of the Iroquois
in 1779; was an active Federalist in the New Hampshire Convention of
1788.
[94] After the battle so many horses and ponies were slain by Sullivan’s
order, that the number of skulls found at a later period caused the
place to be called Horseheads, the name by which the locality has ever
since been known.
[95] New York Harbor froze over, and cannon and men, as well as
supplies, were freely moved on the ice between New York, New Jersey, and
Staten Island.
[96] Born, 1752; died, 1818. Went from Virginia to Kentucky in 1775;
became a leader against the hostile Indians and the British; gained the
Northwest for the Union in 1778.
[97] Born, 1747; died, 1792. Came from Scotland to Virginia shortly
before the Revolutionary War; entered the service of his adopted country
with great enthusiasm; commissioned first lieutenant in the navy, and
made a number of successful cruises; went to France in 1777, where he
was given command first of the _Ranger_, and then of the _Bon Homme
Richard_; he devastated St. George’s Channel, and finally fought the
Serapis; was thanked by Congress and given a sword by France; became a
rear admiral in the Russian navy, and died at Paris.
CHAPTER X.
=THE CAMPAIGNS OF 1780 AND 1781.=
THE WAR IN THE SOUTH.
=213. Clinton’s Success in the South.=—Sir Henry Clinton, even without
a very large force, found it possible to carry out his designs in the
South with energy and success. Leaving Knyphausen a part of his force to
defend New York, he started, December 26, 1779, with eight thousand men,
for the South. Savannah fell into his hands, and a little later he
invested Charleston. General Lincoln made the great mistake of allowing
himself with five thousand men to be shut up in that city with no means
of escape, and accordingly he was forced to surrender on the 12th of
May, 1780, with his whole army. This was the severest blow the Americans
had received. Clinton at once put Lord Cornwallis in command, after
issuing a proclamation, threatening to deal with all who did not return
to allegiance as traitors and rebels. He then went back to New York.
South Carolina was soon overrun by the troops of Cornwallis, Tarleton,
and Ferguson.
[Illustration: LORD CORNWALLIS.]
=214. Northward Movement of the British.=—The American standards,
however, were kept flying by the heroic deeds of the partisan generals,
Marion and Sumter. The British advanced northward, hoping to find very
little opposition before reaching Virginia. Washington recommended the
appointment of Greene to the command of the Southern army; but the
intriguers were successful, and Congress recalled Gates from his
retirement, in the hope that the experience of Burgoyne would be
repeated by Cornwallis.[98] But in North Carolina there had been no
Schuyler to plan the campaign in advance, and there was no Arnold or
Morgan to assist in carrying it out. Gates revealed his inefficiency at
every step; and when the two armies finally came together, on the 16th
of August, 1780, his troops suffered at Camden the most disastrous
defeat ever inflicted on an American army. Though the American force was
superior to the British, it was routed, driven in utter confusion from
the field, and dispersed. Gates himself, after committing a succession
of gross blunders, crowned his ignominy by joining in the panic and
finally leaving the army to its fate. In four days he reached
Hillsborough, some two hundred miles away. Thus the worst fears of
Washington were fully realized, and the whole South was practically in
the grasp of the British. Clinton might well suppose the end to be near
at hand.
THE TREASON OF BENEDICT ARNOLD.
=215. Growth of Arnold’s Disaffection.=—As if to complete a year of
disasters, the country received a terrible shock in the treason of one
of its foremost officers. Benedict Arnold, who had been one of the most
skillful, as well as one of the most energetic of commanders, had been
slighted in various ways. Washington had repeatedly recommended that he
be advanced from brigadier to major general, but Congress promoted five
officers of inferior rank over him. These facts not unnaturally soured
his temper, so that he was inclined to find fault with everything. While
he was in this mood Washington assigned him to the command in
Philadelphia, after the withdrawal of Clinton, where he was noted for
luxurious tastes and extravagant methods of life. Meanwhile he became
engaged to Margaret Shippen, a beautiful daughter of one of the most
prominent Tory families in Philadelphia. Before many months, his views
had drifted completely over to those of the moderate Tory party. After
the surrender of Burgoyne, the British government had offered the
colonies all the constitutional guarantees they had asked for before the
Declaration of Independence, and Arnold, as well as the Tories
generally, believed that these terms should have been accepted.
=216. Charges by Congress against Arnold.=—Arnold was seriously
contemplating the advisability of resigning his post, owing to the
hostility of the Executive Council, when charges of peculation and
misconduct were brought against him. Thereupon he promptly demanded an
investigation. He was acquitted, not only by a committee of Congress,
but afterward by a court-martial, of all the charges excepting two of
very trifling importance. But he felt insulted and persecuted. His
hatred of Congress became intense, and accordingly, in the course of the
six months from January to July, 1780, he devised one of the most
infamous schemes in history. He entered into correspondence with the
British commander, for the purpose of betraying the American cause. His
letters, signed “Gustavus,” were answered by the British adjutant
general, Major John André, over the signature “John Anderson.” But
nothing definite came of the matter until Arnold determined to ask
Washington for the command of West Point, in order that this most
important stronghold in the whole country might be turned over to the
enemy for a good price. His request was granted, and his nefarious plans
came alarmingly near to success.
=217. Meeting of Arnold and André.=—In September the agreement had
advanced so far that a personal interview between the officers in
correspondence was thought desirable. The British fleet, temporarily
under the command of Admiral Rodney, who had recently come from the West
Indies, showed signs of great activity. It was the intention at an
opportune moment to sail up the Hudson and make a show of attacking the
fort. Arnold was to surrender it, with only a faint appearance of
resistance. The American traitor was to sell his country for fifty
thousand dollars and a commission in the British army. On the 18th of
September, Washington left the fort for a conference with Rochambeau at
Hartford; and this absence afforded the coveted opportunity. André,
ascending the Hudson in the British ship _Vulture_ to a point near the
fort, went ashore and passed the night with Arnold a few miles below the
fortress. After some delays the agreement was completed, but in
returning André was obliged to cross and go down the river along the
eastern shore.
=218. Arrest of André.=—At Tarrytown, in a strip of neutral territory
between the two armies, he was arrested by three young men headed by
John Paulding. One of the party had on a Hessian uniform, and when they
confronted André, who was clad in citizen’s dress, he accosted them as
friends, supposing they were British. They immediately declared
themselves to be Americans, however, and roughly ordered him to
dismount. Proceeding to search him, they found the fatal articles of
agreement in his boots. As, however, they were unsigned, Colonel
Jameson, to whom the documents and the prisoner were delivered, decided
to forward the papers to Washington, and to send a message concerning
the affair to Arnold.
=219. Escape of Arnold.=—Washington returned to West Point, September
25, and received the papers soon after his arrival. The letter had
reached Arnold only in time to enable him to escape by taking a boat and
rowing swiftly down to the British ship which was awaiting André. When
Washington read the documents he burst into tears, and with choking
voice disclosed the affair to Lafayette and Knox and the other officers
about him.
=220. André’s Execution.=—André was put upon trial by a court-martial
consisting of fourteen officers, including Greene, Steuben, and
Lafayette, and was pronounced guilty. Though every effort was made by
Clinton to save his life, Washington was inflexible, and, on the morning
of October 2, he died upon the gallows the death of a spy. Though the
English have been inclined to dispute the justice of Washington’s
action, the latest and most judicious of British historians of this
period, Mr. Lecky, after a full examination of the facts, reaches the
conclusion that his condemnation was justified by the usages of war.
Benedict Arnold’s treason has properly given his name an immortality of
infamy.
[Illustration: PLACE OF ANDRÉ’S EXECUTION.]
CAUSES OF DISCOURAGEMENT.
=221. Discontent in the Army.=—The treason of Arnold was followed by
events in the army which added to the general distress and anxiety. The
best of the troops were those that had enlisted during the hopeful
period just after Burgoyne’s surrender, in 1777. The term of enlistment
was “three years, or during the war.” The troops claimed that, as the
three years would expire at the end of December, they would then be
free. The officers interpreted the law as meaning that in case the war
should continue more than three years, the soldiers would be bound to
service until its close. The army had many causes of complaint. Paper
money issued by Congress had now become nearly worthless. With this
money Congress was reluctant to pay the troops, but there was no other.
At the end of December many of the regiments had received no pay for
sixteen months, and supplies of clothing and shoes were so small that
when January approached, many soldiers were barefooted and in rags. The
winter of 1780–1781 saw scarcely less suffering than did the winter at
Valley Forge.
=222. Spirit of Mutiny.=—On New Year’s Day, 1781, thirteen hundred
Pennsylvania troops claimed that their time had expired, and, seizing
six field-pieces, set out for Philadelphia to secure their rights from
Congress. After much parleying, Congress, through its president,
promised to give them certificates of indebtedness and their formal
discharge. Thus it was settled that the men who had enlisted on the
ambiguous terms might go when the three years had expired. By this
decision Washington’s army not only lost its best troops, but was
agitated by the mutinous spirit of others who were tempted to try the
same method. On the 20th of January a part of the New Jersey troops
mutinied without any adequate reason, and were not subdued until they
were met by a brigade of troops from Massachusetts. The insurgents were
soon brought to order, and two of the ringleaders were shot by
Washington’s command. Thus came to a close the most discouraging year of
the whole war.
=223. Discouragements at the Beginning of 1781.=—The disasters that had
come to the Americans in 1780 gave the British many reasons to hope for
a successful end of the contest in the summer of 1781. After the defeat
of Gates at Camden there was a reasonable prospect that Cornwallis,
having completely established British authority in the farther South,
would be able to overrun Virginia and then unite with Clinton in
overwhelming Washington. This feeling received encouragement from the
discontented state of the American army, but in their predictions the
British greatly underrated the ingenuity and the resources of the
American commander in chief. Congress, which had chosen to disregard
Washington’s former recommendation by sending Gates to the South, was
now, late in 1780, when there was only a forlorn hope of success, quite
willing that the commander should designate the general to meet
Cornwallis. Washington selected Greene, the man he had recommended the
year before. The latter did not reach Charlotte in North Carolina until
the 2d of December; but he found that much had already been done by
Marion, Sumter, and Morgan to counteract the effects of disaster and to
keep alive the patriotic spirit.
[Illustration: MAP OF OPERATIONS IN THE SOUTH, 1780–1781]
AMERICAN SUCCESSES IN THE SOUTH.
=224. Victory at King’s Mountain.=—Soon after the defeat of Gates at
Camden, in the summer of 1780, Cornwallis had begun a northward
movement. He sent on in advance two divisions: one under Ferguson, with
about fourteen hundred men, and one under Tarleton,[99] with about the
same number. Ferguson soon found that patriots had arisen on every side.
Enterprising hunters and backwoodsmen had come from all parts of the
North and West, as well as from the neighboring regions, until nearly
three thousand were in the path of his progress. Thwarted at every step,
he was finally obliged to look for a way of retreat. His messengers to
Cornwallis and his scouts were everywhere shot down as fast as they were
sent out. His force was finally brought to bay on the top of King’s
Mountain, where after desperate fighting it was compelled to surrender,
October 7. As a result of this battle, in which Ferguson was killed and
nearly four hundred men were lost, Cornwallis was obliged to fall back
to Winnsborough.
[Illustration: COLONEL TARLETON.]
=225. Victory at Cowpens.=—Against the force of Tarleton, Greene sent
General Daniel Morgan,[100] who had already shown great ability at
Quebec, at Trenton, and at Saratoga. The forces of Tarleton and Morgan
were about equal. The American commander chose, as a spot for the
battle, an open plain where cattle had been herded, called the
“Cowpens.” The British, though wearied after a difficult march of five
hours, decided to advance at once to a front attack. The first volleys
of the Americans caused the enemy’s line to stagger and fall back. As
the British came on a second time to the charge, Colonel Washington, a
relative of the commander in chief, who led the cavalry, swept around
the American left and struck the British in the flank. At this moment
the Continentals rushed forward in a bayonet charge with irresistible
force. The British were obliged to give way at every point, losing two
hundred and thirty killed and wounded and about six hundred prisoners.
Tarleton escaped with difficulty. The Americans lost only twelve killed
and sixty-one wounded. The battle of the Cowpens, fought January 17,
1781, was the most brilliant American victory of the war, as Camden had
been the most disastrous defeat.
[Illustration: GENERAL DANIEL MORGAN.]
=226. Morgan’s Race with Cornwallis.=—Morgan, having now destroyed
Tarleton’s force, at once set out to rejoin Greene, but, in order to do
so, he had to run a race with Cornwallis for the fords of the Catawba
River. Though the British commander had the shorter course, Morgan
pushed on with so much greater speed that he was the first to cross and
thus was able to rejoin the main army.
=227. Battle of Guilford Court House.=—Greene now determined, before
fighting a decisive battle, to draw his enemies as far as possible away
from their supplies. Sending on a part of his force in advance and
placing himself in command of the rear, he kept near enough to
Cornwallis to lure him on without giving him an opportunity for a
decisive battle. At length, on February 9, the American forces united at
Guilford Court House, only about thirty miles south of the Virginia
border, and here Greene, after a delay of about one month, during which
he received reënforcements, selected ground for a battle. Though the
British had a smaller force, they were veterans, while the larger part
of Greene’s army was composed of recent recruits. In the battle which
occurred on the 15th of March, the British had the advantage, but they
lost so heavily that Cornwallis did not dare to pursue the defeated
army. In order to reëstablish his communications with supplies, he moved
southeast for the port at Wilmington.
=228. Greene’s Recovery of the South.=—Greene followed him rapidly
until they were near the coast. Then Greene struck into the South for
the purpose of reëstablishing his authority throughout the Carolinas.
His march was not resisted with any success. September 8, after a
masterly campaign extending over six months, he fought and won the last
battle of the series, at Eutaw Springs, about fifty miles from
Charleston. Thus, within little more than a year after the disastrous
defeat of Gates at Camden, the brilliant campaign of Greene drove
Cornwallis into Wilmington and the remaining British forces in the South
into Charleston, and had practically cleared the intervening country of
the enemy.
THE CLOSE OF THE WAR.
=229. Movement of Cornwallis from Wilmington.=—Cornwallis, however, did
not long remain on the coast. As soon as he had refreshed his army, he
attempted, with the help of Arnold, to overrun Virginia. Reaching
Petersburg on the 20th of May, he was able, within a short time, to take
and pillage the more important towns of Virginia, including Petersburg,
Richmond, Charlottesville, Portsmouth, and Williamsburg. To meet these
raiders, Washington sent Lafayette with an army of Americans and French,
amounting to about five thousand men. The French commander, though only
twenty-three years of age, had learned from Washington the art of
harassing the enemy without bringing on a general engagement. Cornwallis
now had a little more than seven thousand men. After trying in vain to
bring Lafayette to battle, and to get reënforcements from Clinton, he
followed Clinton’s instructions by withdrawing his force to Yorktown, in
order to put himself in communication with the British fleet. This was
the fatal move that resulted in the loss of the British cause.
=230. Plans of Washington and Rochambeau.=—Two days after the British
reached Petersburg, Washington had an important conference with
Rochambeau at Wethersfield, Connecticut. There, it was decided to send
to the West Indies for Commodore de Grasse and such ships of the French
fleet as could be spared from that region. The purpose was to combine
the French and Americans, either to make a joint attack upon New York,
or, by a sudden movement toward the South, to overwhelm Cornwallis. De
Grasse was to choose and to report whether he would go to New York, or
would stop at the Chesapeake.
[Illustration: OPERATIONS AT YORKTOWN]
=231. Plan of the Yorktown Campaign.=—In due time, Washington learned
that De Grasse had chosen the Southern destination, and accordingly he
began at once to maneuver his force so as to lead Clinton to suppose
that the purpose was a general attack on New York. He ordered all
preparations to be made in New Jersey as though he intended a siege,
even sending misleading dispatches, which he planned to have the British
capture. So skillfully was this done, that even when the army began to
move from the Hudson, the British believed it was for the purpose of a
general attack upon the city from New Jersey and Staten Island. The
secret of the movement was confined to the French and American
commanders. Washington evidently believed with Franklin, that three
persons can keep a secret only when one of them is dead. On the 19th of
August, leaving a strong guard along the front line, the French and
American armies commenced their Southern march. So skillfully had all
plans been arranged, that Clinton learned of the movement only after the
Americans had reached Philadelphia, nearly a hundred miles away. He
attempted a diversion by an attack upon Connecticut, but it was
impossible to retard the march, or distract the attention of Washington.
The British could not follow without abandoning New York to Heath, who
had been left with four thousand men on the Hudson.
=232. Movement of De Grasse.=—De Grasse, with a larger fleet even than
had been anticipated, reached the Chesapeake on the day when Washington
reached Philadelphia. The French admiral at once landed three thousand
troops and turned them over to Lafayette, whose army was thus increased
to about eight thousand men. The French general, knowing that Washington
was not far away, threw his lines boldly across the peninsula, September
7, thus shutting Cornwallis completely in. The British now saw the James
on the one side, the York River on the other, with De Grasse in the
rear, and Lafayette in front. Their condition was hopeless.
=233. Surrender of Cornwallis.=—Though a few British ships reached the
scene from the north, they were too weak to cope with the fleet of De
Grasse, and there was, therefore, no possible escape. To break through
the American lines was impossible, as Cornwallis was now confronted by
an army more than twice the size of his own. The siege and bombardment
began at once. The cannonade was continued for some days with terrific
energy, till the British ammunition began to fail. The outworks were
carried by an assault in two divisions,—one of Americans and the other
of Frenchmen. The Americans, led by Alexander Hamilton, were the first
to cross the British ramparts. This was on the 14th of October. On the
17th, just four years after the surrender of Burgoyne, Cornwallis
hoisted the white flag. As soon as the preliminaries could be settled,
seven thousand two hundred and forty-seven soldiers became prisoners of
war.
=234. Influence of the Surrender on the British Government.=—The
surrender of Cornwallis was virtually the end of this long and memorable
contest, for it put enthusiastic life into the Americans, while it
overwhelmed the British government with confusion. Those English
statesmen who had opposed the war from the first so strengthened their
following that they were able to sweep the king’s friends out of power
and bring in a government that sympathized with their views. The king
himself, though driven almost to despair by this stupendous event, was
the last to recognize its real significance; but at length even George
III. saw that with a war on his hands against France, Spain, and
Holland, his American project, so dear to his heart, must now be given
up. A new ministry, with Lord Rockingham at its head, was brought in to
negotiate terms of peace.
=235. Difficulties in making Peace.=—There were long delays and many
difficulties in arranging terms. These were greatly complicated by the
fact that America had France as an ally, and France had to be consulted
in regard to all the conditions. Congress had no money with which to pay
off the soldiers, and no power to raise money in the individual states.
Discontent among the rank and file threatened to end in the most serious
revolts. Nothing but the infallible tact and skill of Washington
prevented mutiny. The commander in chief, however, was inflexible in his
determination that the forces should be kept up until the treaty was
finally adopted. That painful period of distress and waiting at length
came to an end, but it was not until September 3, 1783, nearly two years
after the surrender at Yorktown, that the treaty was signed at Paris. By
that act Great Britain acknowledged the independence of the country from
Canada to the Floridas, and from the Atlantic to the Mississippi. The
conquest of the West was thus admitted, but the northern boundary was
left rather vague, owing to defective knowledge of the region.
=236. Treatment of Tories.=—The Americans made the mistake of refusing
to grant amnesty to the adherents of the defeated party, as should
always be done in civil war. The patriots, or Whigs, as they were often
called, continued to persecute the Tories. Many were put to death, and
thousands were obliged to flee into Canada and Nova Scotia, where their
descendants still remember with bitterness the treatment of their
ancestors.
=237. Causes of Success.=—The success of the Revolutionary War was
mainly due to five causes:—
1. The unfailing courage, wisdom, and ability of Washington. Even in the
darkest hours his confidence in the final issue never faltered. By the
wisdom and persuasiveness of the letters which he sent to governors,
members of Congress, and prominent men in all parts of the country, he
inspired others with something of his own confidence and multiplied the
friends of independence. His extraordinary military skill in knowing
when to fight and when not to fight, enabled him to take advantage of
the mistakes of the enemy and to strike a blow whenever he could hurt
the cause of the British or inspire his own army with new courage.
2. The alliance and support of the French. Until the Yorktown campaign
the active assistance of the French in the field was very slight, but
the moral support was most important. While it inspired the Americans
with new courage, it had a corresponding effect in disheartening the
British, who had to fight the French in other parts of the world. But
for De Grasse, the Yorktown campaign would probably not have been
attempted; for, if attempted, Cornwallis could easily have been
supported and relieved by the British fleet.
3. The weakness of the British commanders in the field. Gage, Howe,
Burgoyne, Clinton, and Cornwallis were all greatly inferior to
Washington and Greene.
4. The British, toward the end of the conflict, had four very important
wars on their hands, so that they found it impossible to send large
reënforcements to their armies in America.
5. The persistent spirit of the American patriots. Though often
defeated, and sometimes much disheartened, they stubbornly refused to
give up. Even in the dark days of 1780, when the South was overwhelmed
and overrun, they never regarded the cause as lost. It was this spirit
which made it possible for Washington to keep a force in the field large
enough to prevent the complete success of the British.
* * * * *
REFERENCES.—The same as at the end of Chapter VI.
-----
[98] Born, 1737; died, 1806. Served in the Seven Years’ War; favored the
Americans during the preliminary discussions in Parliament; was made
lieutenant general, and sent to America in 1776; fought at Long Island;
was defeated at Princeton; decided the victory by a flank movement at
the Brandywine; served at Germantown and Monmouth; overwhelmed Gates at
Camden, 1780; defeated Greene at Guilford Court House, 1781; was so
outgeneralled that he practically lost the South and retreated into
Virginia, where he was overwhelmed by Lafayette and Washington at
Yorktown, 1781; was governor general in India, 1786–1793; was lord
lieutenant of Ireland, 1798–1801; is properly considered the ablest of
the British generals in the Revolutionary War.
[99] Born, 1754; died, 1833. Came to America, 1776; in 1779, as
lieutenant colonel, organized in South Carolina a troop known as the
“British” or “Tarleton’s Legion”; waged with it very effective partisan
warfare; served with great success at Camden; defeated by Morgan at the
Cowpens, 1781; made a raid in Virginia, 1781; returned to England and
served many years in Parliament; knighted (Sir Banastre Tarleton), 1818.
[100] Born, 1736; died, 1802. Fought in the French and Indian Wars; led
a company of Virginia riflemen at Boston; after release from
imprisonment in Arnold’s expedition against Quebec, gained great
distinction at Saratoga under Gates; resigned in 1779, but rejoined the
army in 1780 as brigadier general; gained victory at Cowpens; was
congressman from Virginia in 1797.
[Illustration: LAND CLAIMS OF THE THIRTEEN ORIGINAL STATES
IN 1783]
CHAPTER XI.
=THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION AND THE CONSTITUTION.=
DIFFICULTIES OF CONFEDERATION.
=238. Chaotic Condition at the Outbreak of the War.=—As soon as the
Declaration of Independence was adopted, the members of Congress saw
that some form of general government would be necessary to bind the
different parts of the country into common methods. Several of the
states now had the advantage of regularly constituted governments; but
the Continental Congress was without authority from any source whatever.
Its members had been sent together by the different states without any
mutual understanding or instructions, and consequently it had no power,
except that of war, to enforce its acts.
=239. Committee to frame Articles of Confederation.=—On the day after
the committee was appointed to frame the Declaration, a still larger
committee was charged with the duty of preparing some plan of
confederation. The difficulties met by this committee were almost
insurmountable. The colonies were at that moment engaged in the work of
framing permanent constitutions for themselves. Nor did the common cause
of the war entirely sweep away the jealous differences between the
states. The colonies had been settled by people of differing religious
and political beliefs, and they had preferences for differing methods.
The smaller colonies feared they would be absorbed, and the larger ones
feared they would not have proper representation. The same spirit which
made them desire to be free from the rule of the mother country made
each state unwilling to be subject to the rule of the other states. As
the Declaration of Independence had been aimed against the central
authority of Great Britain, it was natural that they should distrust a
strong central authority in the government they were about to establish.
It was in the face of all these difficulties that the “Articles of
Confederation and Perpetual Union” were reported by the committee, only
eight days after the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
=240. Difficulties of Agreement.=—But the representatives found so many
reasons for desiring changes that a final agreement was not reached by
Congress until November of 1777. Then the articles had to go to the
several states for ratification. The difficulties now seemed greater
than ever before. According to the articles, every state was to have an
equal vote with every other state, but to this equality of
representation the larger states very strongly objected, while the
smaller states stubbornly resisted every other method. There were also
grave differences of opinion as to the executive branch of the new
government.
=241. Western Lands.=—The ownership of the Western lands was the
occasion of one of the most serious difficulties. The boundaries of some
of the states were defined by their charters, while those of others were
not. Six of the states claimed to extend as far west as the Mississippi
River, while Virginia defined her boundary as extending to the northwest
so far as to include the region which afterward formed Ohio, Michigan,
and Wisconsin. The other states held that this territory had all been
rescued from the British by common effort, and therefore that it should
belong to the nation as a whole. This opinion finally prevailed. At
length, after long and hot discussion, New York agreed to cede its
Western lands to the general government, and this example was soon
imitated by the others, although several states still reserved certain
portions of their Western territory. After this concession, New Jersey
was the first state to ratify the articles. Others followed so slowly
that the ratification was not complete until Maryland signed on March 1,
1781, only a few months before the surrender at Yorktown. The delay
shows the difficulty of obtaining even so little central authority as
the articles provided for.
=242. Weaknesses of the Confederation.=—It immediately became evident
that the confederation had very serious defects. Though a stronger
government at the time could not have been adopted, the one obtained was
of little value, except to show that a stronger government was demanded.
By its provisions no measure could be taken by Congress without the vote
of nine of the thirteen states, and even after the adoption of a
measure, the confederation had no power to enforce it. The central
government relied upon the individual states to carry out its laws, and
the states had the option of enforcing obedience, or not, as they chose.
Meantime the states themselves were under no restrictions. They passed
revenue laws according to their own interests, and custom-houses had to
be multiplied along the state borders. Whenever any tax was called for
by Congress, to pay off the Continental troops or for any other purpose,
some of the states would enforce its collection and others would not.
=243. Dangers shown by Shays’ Rebellion and Other Disturbances.=—In New
Hampshire an armed force assailed the legislature at Exeter and demanded
an issue of paper money. In Massachusetts, the collection of debts and
taxes was forcibly resisted. The people in the central part of the
state, led by Daniel Shays, collected into a motley army, and not only
attacked the arsenal, but kept the state in a turmoil for more than six
months. At length “Shays’ Rebellion,” as it was called, was put down by
Governor Bowditch (1787), but with difficulty. Not one of the insurgents
was punished. The states seemed to be growing farther and farther apart
and more and more independent. There was really great danger that this
tendency would go on till the United States, like Europe, would be made
up of many independent nationalities. As if to make improvement
impossible, the framers of the Articles of Confederation had provided
that no change in them should be adopted unless agreed to by all the
states. The consequence was that whenever any change was proposed, some
state objected and the proposal was lost. It was a time of such
perplexity and danger that it has been aptly called, “The Critical
Period in American History.”
THE CONSTITUTION.
[Illustration: ALEXANDER HAMILTON.]
=244. First Effort for a Convention.=—During all this time Washington,
Hamilton, and Madison had been writing letters to show that a change was
necessary and to devise a means of bringing it about. At length, the
legislature of Virginia issued a call in 1786 for a general convention
to meet at Annapolis, Maryland. But the smaller states were very shy of
committing themselves to any scheme proposed by any of the larger
states, and only five states responded to the call. Of course nothing
could be done. The very absence of representatives, however, revealed
some of the difficulties of the situation.
=245. Second Effort toward a Convention.=—The next year another course
was adopted and with greater success. The call for the convention was
issued by Congress. The purpose of the call was not to frame a new
constitution, but to modify the old one. Twelve of the states appointed
delegates, Rhode Island, the smallest of the commonwealths, alone
standing aloof. The convention met at Philadelphia in May, 1787, and
unanimously chose Washington as its president.
=246. Ability in the Convention.=—This convention was fortunate in
having prominent representatives of all classes. Every state sent its
best. Of the fifty-five members, twenty-nine had been college bred.
Jefferson and John Adams were in Europe. Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry
opposed the convention and remained at home. With these exceptions the
most eminent men of the country were present. Washington and Franklin,
by their general wisdom and great experience, represented the practical
judgment of men of affairs. There were John Dickinson, whose _Farmer’s
Letters_ had done so much to bring on the Revolution (§ 131), and James
Wilson, a Scotchman, one of the most learned jurists the country has
ever had. Hamilton and Madison, by their varied and profound knowledge
of political history, brought to the convention the advantage of the
best types of general scholarship. Hamilton,[101] though only thirty
years of age, was probably the ablest political thinker in the body. But
his power was neutralized by the fact that New York, the state which he
represented, had opposed the convention, and had sent two delegates to
do what they could to prevent success. Hamilton was further handicapped
by the extreme nature of his views, for he believed in a much stronger
central government than could at that time be adopted.
[Illustration: JAMES MADISON.]
=247. James Madison.=—For these reasons, the main guidance of the
convention fortunately fell upon James Madison,[102] a young man less
brilliant than Hamilton, but superior to him in the art of estimating
what is possible. A graduate of Princeton College, he had been from his
youth a devoted student of history, had made himself thoroughly
acquainted with all the best books on political science, and had paid
particular attention to the republican organizations of Greece, Rome,
Switzerland, and Holland. From the time he was twenty-five he had taken
a prominent part in the Virginia legislature and in Congress, and he
thoroughly understood the weaknesses and difficulties of the Articles of
Confederation. His knowledge and experience, though united with a
remarkable firmness of purpose, were presented with a kindness and
sweetness of manner that commended his views to all his fellow-members.
Madison, therefore, was the most influential of the members in giving
the Constitution the form in which it was adopted.
=248. General Spirit of the Convention.=—The delegates brought together
the wisdom and experience gained in framing the state constitutions and
from observing the prevailing difficulties. The efforts of the
convention to amend the Articles of Confederation were doomed to early
failure. It was soon decided to abandon them altogether and to frame an
entirely new constitution. Here the smaller states caused the greatest
difficulty, for they were determined to give as little power as possible
to the general government, in order that they might not be overwhelmed
or absorbed. In this determination were enlisted not only New York,
which was then one of the less important states, but also New Hampshire,
New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland.
=249. Representation of Slaves.=—Another very serious obstacle was
presented by the slave trade and the question of the representation of
slaves in Congress. In the early part of the eighteenth century there
were about twelve thousand slaves north of Mason and Dixon’s line, and
about forty-eight thousand south of it. But at the time of the
Constitutional Convention, there were about fifty thousand in the North,
and not far from seven hundred thousand in the South. There had been
little or no importation of slaves during the war, and the slave system
was generally condemned by the best men of the South as well as by those
of the North. In their opinion, it was only a question of time when it
would cease altogether. But the greater number of slaves in the South
made the Southern delegates determined to have them represented, while
the North generally opposed such representation.
=250. Strength of Central Government.=—Another difficulty in the way of
agreement was found in the radical differences of opinion between the
members as to whether the new government was to be very weak or very
strong. This was by far the most important question of all. One party
held that the states should still be left with great powers, and should
be practically independent; while the opposite party thought that a
general government with the essential attributes of an elective monarchy
was most needed. There was, however, a very general and a very natural
remembrance of the fact that it was the predominating strength of the
executive part of the British government that had caused separation, and
there was a general disposition to avoid any similar defect.
=251. Discussion of the Difficulties.=—These various difficulties taxed
all the faculties of the members. It sometimes seemed that not another
step of progress could be made, and that the delegates would be obliged
to abandon the task and go home. As discussion advanced, it became
evident that no agreement could be made except through a general spirit
of conciliation and compromise. The convention sat with closed doors,
and for four months considered the stupendous difficulties that
confronted them. At length, on the 17th day of September, 1787, they
agreed upon a constitution and adjourned. It was to go into effect when
ratified by the conventions of nine states.
=252. Four Great Lines of Compromise.=—The Constitution was built upon
a basis of four great lines of mutual concession.
First, the smaller states were brought to agreement by being allowed the
same representation in the Senate as the larger states; while the larger
states were satisfied by being allowed to send to the House of
Representatives a number of delegates to be determined by the number of
inhabitants.
Second, the question of the representation of slavery in Congress was
finally adjusted by providing that for determining the number of
representatives of each state, Congress should add to the number of
freemen three-fifths of all persons held to service. Congress was also
prohibited from abolishing the foreign slave trade before 1808.
Third, the advocates of a strong central government came to an agreement
with the advocates of a weak one by allowing the dividing line between
the authority of the central government and of the several states to be
somewhat vaguely defined, and by leaving such definition to the course
of future events. It is probable that if either side had insisted on
putting into words a statement authorizing its interpretation, no
agreement could have been reached. This uncertainty of interpretation,
though apparently necessary to an agreement on the Constitution, might
be called the fundamental cause of the Civil War in 1861.
Fourth, while the President, by being made commander in chief of the
army and being intrusted with the enforcement of all laws, was given
great authority, he was put under rigid constitutional checks in
numerous ways. In case he should exceed his authority, he could be
impeached by the House of Representatives and tried by the Senate; and
in case of conviction, removed from office. It was further provided that
in all cases whatsoever involving differences of opinion regarding the
Constitution, the Supreme Court should render authoritative decision.
This authority of the Supreme Court was the most marked peculiarity of
the Constitution.
[Illustration: FEDERAL HALL, NEW YORK CITY.]
=253. Characteristics of the Constitution.=—On the basis of these
mutual concessions, the Constitution was finally adopted. It provided
for three departments of government: the Legislative, to make the laws;
the Executive, to execute the laws; and the Judicial, to define the laws
in case of dispute. The legislature consisted of the House of
Representatives, the members of which were to be chosen for two years by
the people of the several states; and the Senate, consisting of two
members from each state, who were to be chosen for a term of six years.
The executive officer was to be a President, elected for a term of four
years, by electors chosen by the people of the several states, each
state to have as many electors as it had members in the Senate and the
House of Representatives together. To the President was also given
legislative influence through the right of veto. The judiciary was to
consist of a Supreme Court, and such other courts as Congress might
provide for. The judges were to be appointed by the President, with the
consent of the Senate, and were to hold office during good behavior. In
case of misdemeanor they could be removed by impeachment. The authority
given to the Supreme Court to declare acts of Congress contrary to the
Constitution, and therefore null and void, was a new element in
government and made the court stronger than any other court in
existence. Jefferson returned from Europe just after the completion of
the work of the convention, and was almost panic stricken by fear that
the plan of government, if adopted by the states, would allow, if not
even encourage, the establishment of monarchy. It was many years before
Jefferson’s fears were allayed. The general wisdom of these provisions,
however, has been acknowledged by the whole world.
[Illustration: PATRICK HENRY.]
=254. Attitude of the States.=—After the adoption of the Constitution
by the convention, it went to the several states for ratification, and
during the winter of 1787–1788 conventions in the respective
commonwealths had the question of adoption under consideration. Its
ratification was most strenuously opposed in Virginia, in New York, and
in Rhode Island. Patrick Henry was the most eloquent of these opponents,
his opposition being founded on the belief that the general government
would gradually grow so strong as to interfere with the governments of
the individual states. Of the states unfavorable to the Constitution,
New Hampshire was the first to yield, in June, 1788. New York and
Virginia soon followed. Rhode Island and North Carolina held out, and
the Constitution went into effect without their consent. In order to
satisfy those who thought the Federal government had too much power, ten
amendments to the Constitution, embodying a Bill of Rights designed to
restrict those powers, were adopted in 1791. The final adoption of the
Constitution was brought about very largely through the influence of a
remarkable series of letters written by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, and
afterward collected into the volume known as _The Federalist_.
=255. Washington, the First President.=—When, soon after the adoption
of the Constitution, the first general election was held, it was found
that every elector voted for Washington, who was therefore unanimously
elected as the first President. John Adams, having the next number of
votes, was elected Vice President. On April 30, 1789, they were
inaugurated on the balcony of the Federal Building, on Wall Street, New
York City, which was then the seat of government.
[Illustration: THE NORTHWEST TERRITORY
IN 1787]
=256. Ordinance for governing the Northwest.=—While the Constitutional
Convention was in session at Philadelphia, the Congress of the
Confederation was in session in New York City. On the 30th of July,
1787, Congress passed the memorable “Ordinance for the Organization of
Government in the Northwest,” that vast and important territory which
now comprises the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan,
Wisconsin, and a part of Minnesota. This ordinance established among
others four provisions of fundamental importance, which have contributed
immensely to the development of the North Central states. These four
fundamental provisions were the following:—
1. “Slavery and involuntary servitude shall forever be excluded.” This
provision exempted the region from those perplexing discussions which
afterward troubled Missouri, Kansas, and Nebraska.
2. “Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary for the welfare of
mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be
encouraged.” In this provision common schools, high schools, normal
schools, and universities found their constitutional justification, and
accordingly, in all the states formed from the Northwest Territory,
schools of all grades have been supported by taxation. The example thus
set has been followed by all the states since admitted to the Union.
3. “The navigable rivers leading into the Mississippi and the St.
Lawrence, and the carrying places between them, shall be common highways
and forever free.” This provision secured that freedom of communication
between the states which has encouraged very rapid material growth.
4. “The inhabitants shall forever enjoy religious freedom, the habeas
corpus, trial by jury, and equal civil and political privileges.” This
provision not only secured perfect independence of religious thought,
but protected all the people, immigrants as well as others, in the
enjoyment of political freedom.
Though the binding authority of this ordinance was subsequently declared
by the Supreme Court to have been superseded by the adoption of the
Constitution, its influence on the development of the Northwest was
unquestionably very great.
* * * * *
REFERENCES.—A. Johnston, _American Politics_, 3-18; R.
Frothingham, _Rise of the Republic_, 569-610 (of great
importance); J. Fiske, _Civil Government_, 180-260; F. A.
Walker, _Making of the Nation_, 1-75; A. B. Hart, _Formation of
the Union_, 93-140; J. Fiske, _Critical Period of American
History_, 90-101 and 177-186; J. Winsor, _Narrative and Critical
History of America_, Vol. VI., 716, Vol. VII.; H. Von Holst,
_Constitutional History_, Vol. I.; J. Schouler, _United States_,
Vol. I.; H. C. Lodge, _Washington_, Vol. II. Fiske, Schouler,
and Winsor are the most important of the general authorities on
almost every point. J. Bryce, _The American Commonwealth_
(abridged edition), chaps. iii., xxv., xxix., important on the
various functions of different parts of the government; Elliot,
_Debates on the Constitution_; Hamilton, _The Federalist_; B. A.
Hinsdale, _The Old Northwest_; W. G. Sumner, _The Financier and
the Finances of the American Revolution_ (2 vols.); W. P.
Cutler, _Ordinance of 1787; American History Leaflets_, Nos. 7,
8, 14, 20; _Old South Leaflets_, XI., 5; T. Roosevelt, _The
Winning of the West_, Vol. II., chaps. i.–iii.
-----
[101] Born at Nevis, in West Indies, January 11, 1757; died, July 12,
1804. Developed an astonishing precocity, and was sent to New York City
in 1772; entered Columbia College, and in 1774 made a public speech that
was considered marvelous for a boy of seventeen; published numerous
pamphlets of importance, and organized a cavalry company which he led at
Long Island and White Plains; was member of Washington’s staff,
1776–1781; ended his military career by leading the final charge at
Yorktown; member of Congress, 1782–1783; member of Annapolis Convention
in 1786, and Federal Convention in 1787; was the chief writer of _The
Federalist_; converted a two-thirds majority in the New York Convention
of 1788 into a minority against the Constitution; as Secretary of the
Treasury under Washington founded the national financial system;
resigned in 1795; was a constant power as a writer, until killed in a
duel by Burr in 1804.
[102] Born, 1751; died, 1836. Graduated at Princeton, 1772; member of
Committee of Public Safety in 1774; member of the Virginia Convention in
1776; member of Continental Congress, 1780–1784, in which he was noted
for the wisdom of his judgment and the aptness of his methods; did great
service in securing religious liberty in Virginia in 1784–1787; member
of the Annapolis Convention in 1786; most influential member of the
Constitutional Convention of 1787; a leading member of Congress from
1789 to 1797; wrote the “Virginia Resolutions” in 1798; Secretary of
State under Jefferson from 1801 to 1809; President from 1809 to 1817,
during which time the war against Great Britain was forced upon him;
lived in retirement at Montpelier, Virginia, from 1817 till his death.
[Illustration: UNITED STATES IN 1789]
PART III.
THE ORGANIZATION OF POLITICAL
PARTIES, 1789–1825.
* * * * *
CHAPTER XII.
=THE COUNTRY AT THE CLOSE OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.=
GENERAL CONDITIONS.
=257. Population and Area.=—The country over which Washington began to
preside in 1789 was very different from the great nation it has grown to
be. Counting about seven hundred and fifty thousand slaves, the
population did not quite reach four millions. Eleven years later, by the
second census, that of 1800, this population had increased to 5,308,480;
but the area of 827,844 square miles was not yet settled at the ratio of
six and a half persons to a square mile. It was only along the Atlantic
coast from Virginia to Massachusetts that the original wilderness had
been fairly conquered by settlements that furnished a population of from
twenty-five to ninety inhabitants to the square mile.
=258. Boundary Disputes.=—The boundaries of this immense and
practically unoccupied area were in dispute to the north, northwest, and
south. The British still kept garrisons at Detroit, Niagara, and other
forts. In the region bordering on the Gulf of Mexico, Spanish claims
conflicted with those of the Americans, and Spain denied the inhabitants
of the new settlements beyond the Alleghanies any practical use of the
lower Mississippi. A treaty with Spain in 1795 helped to mend these
matters.
[Illustration: BLOCKHOUSE AT MACKINAW,
1780.]
=259. The West.=—The Westerners, who were thus deprived of the full use
of their great waterway and whom Spanish agents endeavored to detach
from the Union, were few in numbers. Kentucky and Tennessee were
practically the only organized settlements; but a popular movement
toward Ohio and the Northwest was beginning, and by the end of the
century the Mississippi Territory had been formed in the region which
Georgia claimed north of the Gulf. Most of the settlers in these
outlying communities had moved westward from the frontier portions of
the adjoining older states. Thus many of the immigrants to Tennessee
came from North Carolina. Often they were of Scotch-Irish stock, deeply
religious, hardy and frugal. They drove out the Indians, killed the wild
beasts, cleared lands for their farms, and raised their large families
in a rude independence. On the foundations they laid, great
commonwealths have been erected which should not in their present wealth
and power forget the bold adventurers who crossed the mountains in wagon
trains or floated down the Ohio in large flat-bottomed boats.[103]
=260. The Older Commonwealths.=—Within the original colonies state
lines were much confused. Vermont did not formally succeed in throwing
off New York’s claim and becoming a state until 1791. Connecticut still
claimed a strip of land along the northern border of the Northwest
Territory. Maine continued to constitute a district of Massachusetts.
The population of all the states was chiefly of English descent and was,
on the whole, homogeneous, although the amount of intercourse between
state and state was still small. Virginia was the most populous of the
states, Massachusetts ranking next. Each was typical of the region to
which it belonged, the presence of slavery more or less retarding the
South, and the comparative absence of it favoring New England.
=261. Occupations.=—Although the country had grown considerably in
population and wealth during the eighteenth century, the people had not
greatly changed in character or in their pursuits. The confusion
engendered by the Revolution was slowly passing away, but the revived
industries ran along much the same narrow lines as of old. At
Washington’s accession to the Presidency public and private finances
were in a bad shape, but speedy improvement followed the reforms of
Hamilton, shortly to be described (§ 266). Agriculture was still the
main calling—the nation being, on the whole, one of farmers. Commerce,
however, was a surer source of wealth, especially in the East, where
there was a good deal of shipping. But manufacturing was in its infancy,
as we at once perceive when we learn that even in 1800 not quite four
per cent of the people lived in towns.
=262. The Towns.=—The country people had no such incentives to flock to
cities as they have to-day. There were no railroads or steamboats to
make the journey easy. On the contrary, roads were bad and travel by
water was both uncomfortable and dangerous. Nor were the towns, of which
Philadelphia with seventy thousand inhabitants, New York with sixty
thousand, Baltimore with twenty-six thousand, Boston with twenty-four
thousand, and Charleston with twenty thousand, were the chief,
especially attractive. Sanitation was little attended to, save in
Philadelphia after the terrible yellow fever epidemics of 1793 and 1797.
There were few theaters. The newspapers were small and uninfluential
sheets. Good colleges and schools and libraries were scarcely to be
found. Life was comparatively simple and lacking in interest and
brilliancy. Indeed the country gentleman, especially in the South, found
his rural sports and his rounds of social visiting more enlivening than
the life led by his town friends.
[Illustration: STAGECOACH OF THE TIME OF WASHINGTON.]
SPIRIT OF THE PEOPLE.
=263. Dominance of the Colonial Spirit.=—In their mental attitude
toward life the American people had changed about as little as in their
occupations and customs. Although in Jonathan Edwards and Benjamin
Franklin they had produced two great writers, in Franklin and Benjamin
Thompson (Count Rumford, 1733–1814) eminent scientists, and in Benjamin
West (1738–1820) and J. S. Copley (1737–1815) distinguished painters;
although they had developed as great statesmen and political writers as
any country could name, they still had no literature, or art, or science
worthy of being called national. In other words, though the people of
the United States had won their political independence, they were still,
in their modes of thought and action, dominated by the spirit of
colonial dependence. There were many persons who not merely imitated
English manners and dress, read English books, and wrote in the current
English style, but who even shared, in the main, English political ideas
and prejudices. There were others who were fully as much influenced by
French modes of thought and life. Here and there, in great men like
Washington or Franklin, we find a sturdy originality that smacks of the
soil, and undoubtedly the plainer people were little affected by foreign
ideas and customs. But the towns still preserved their colonial attitude
of dependence on Europe, and this was in the main true of the prosperous
country families as well. In fact, the seaboard colonies were, in a way,
outskirts of Europe, just as the Western communities were outskirts of
the Atlantic seaboard. There was little of the enterprise and activity
which throughout America to-day keep small communities from stagnating.
In short, our forefathers of three generations ago were in many ways a
very different race of beings from their descendants of to-day.
=264. Virtue and Happiness of the People.=—Yet it would be a great
mistake to suppose that the drawbacks just enumerated were in the main
apparent to the American people themselves, or that they are greatly to
be insisted upon in a sketch of the civilization of the period. American
life might at the close of the eighteenth century seem dull and narrow
to travelers from Europe, but we know that a happy, brave, free,
religious people inhabited a land that yielded abundant returns to their
labors, and we may readily believe that their lives were fully as useful
as ours are to-day. Nor should it ever be forgotten that amid these
provincial surroundings arose the greatest figure that modern history
can show, and that the American people were wise enough to choose
electors who would make him President.
* * * * *
REFERENCES.—J. Schouler, _History of the United States_, Vol.
I., chaps. i.–iii.; J. B. McMaster, _History of the American
People_, Vol. I., chap. i. See also References to the next
chapter. The novels of Charles Brockden Brown (1771–1810), the
first American who was a successful professional man of letters,
may be profitably consulted in connection with this chapter,
especially his _Arthur Mervyn_, and _Ormond_, which describe
life in Philadelphia during the yellow fever epidemics.
-----
[103] Kentucky was made a state in 1792; Tennessee, in 1796; Ohio, in
1803.
[Illustration: THE AREAS OF FREEDOM AND SLAVERY IN 1790]
CHAPTER XIII.
=THE ADMINISTRATIONS OF WASHINGTON, 1789–1797.=
EARLY LEGISLATION AND PARTIES.
=265. Washington as a Statesman.=—When Washington took the oath of
office in New York City[104] on April 30, 1789, few people could have
foreseen that the elderly, dignified man, dressed in the picturesque
costume of the period, would one day rank among the greatest statesmen
of the world. His experience had been rather with military than with
civil affairs. He was reserved in temper, and liked forms and ceremonies
to which the masses were opposed. He had few of the arts of persuasion.
His mind was not trained like that of John Adams, for example, nor was
it markedly original. But he had had the training of experience, and he
had what is essential to statesmanship of the first order—a great
character, sobriety, dignity, perfect rectitude of purpose, knowledge of
men, and willingness to trust those whom he regarded as competent—in
short, wisdom as opposed to mere knowledge made Washington the great
statesman we now know him to have been. He held the reins of government
firmly and made few or no mistakes. He saw that the new nation should
show prudence and by its dignity win the respect of other nations; and
in spite of criticism, and often of frantic opposition, he kept his
administrations well in line with his ideals. He avoided foreign
complications and appeased or put down domestic discontent. He balanced
political parties and made their leaders serve the state. When he laid
down his office he explained his principles in his “Farewell Address,”
which has become one of the political classics of the world. And now,
after the lapse of a century, the perspective of time enables us to
comprehend, in part at least, the unique grandeur of his position among
men.
=266. Early Legislation.=—The first Congress, which was organized
shortly before Washington was inaugurated, contained some eminent men,
chief among them perhaps being James Madison of Virginia, in the House
of Representatives, and John Adams of Massachusetts, who, as Vice
President, presided over the Senate. The members were residents of the
districts they represented, and their salary was at first six dollars a
day. The most important work they did, after determining the rules of
procedure that should govern them, was to organize those portions of the
administration and government that had been left vague by the
Constitution. They established the three departments of State, Treasury,
and War, whose Secretaries, along with the Attorney-General, formed the
President’s Cabinet.[105] The Post-Office Department was also organized,
but the Postmaster-General was not then included in the Cabinet.
Congress furthermore organized the Federal judiciary along the lines of
circuit and district courts that it follows at present, the Supreme
Court having been authorized by the Constitution, but the number of its
justices not having been settled. They also passed a tariff law giving
mild protection to manufacturers, as well as a moderate system of
internal duties on distilled spirits. They arranged for the payment of
the foreign and domestic public debt of the United States, about
fifty-four million dollars, mainly incurred to carry on the Revolution,
and also, after much discussion, agreed to assume a large part, _i.e._
twenty-one million five hundred thousand dollars, of the debts of the
individual states contracted for the same purpose. The latter measure
was carried only by means of an agreement to fix the Federal capital at
a point on the Potomac River (afterward Washington), in return for which
concession Southern votes were secured.[106] Finally, Congress
established a National Bank with a capital of ten million dollars and a
charter running twenty years, and also laid before the states twelve
amendments to the Constitution which, as we have seen (§ 254), had been
suggested during the state debates on the adoption of that
instrument.[107]
=267. Hamilton and the Federalists.=—The financial legislation
mentioned in the last paragraph had been outlined in the main by
Alexander Hamilton of New York, the first Secretary of the Treasury.
This remarkable man had distinguished himself as a soldier and as a
contributor to _The Federalist_ in defense of the Constitution (§ 254),
before Washington chose him as his chief counselor. As a financier and
an administrator working under a chief, he has probably had no equal in
America. In his theories of government, however, he favored a strong
central administration more than a simple people suspicious of tyranny
thought proper. Hence, while he easily dominated all the supporters of
the new government, he failed to secure the confidence of the masses and
probably would not have been given the Presidency, even if he had not
fallen in a duel with Aaron Burr in 1804. He did, however, during his
life direct the policy of the Federalists, as the party supporting the
Union under the Constitution was called. Washington would have liked to
govern without parties, but the unsettled question whether the new
central government should be strong or weak necessitated a twofold
division of voters. And in the end even Washington was forced more or
less to take sides with Hamilton and the Federalists.
=268. Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans.=—Hamilton’s rival in
the Cabinet was Thomas Jefferson of Virginia, who gave up his post as
minister to France to accept the Secretaryship of State. Jefferson had
already acquired great fame as the writer of the Declaration of
Independence and other state papers. He had been governor of Virginia,
and was a good legislator and administrative officer, although plainly
Hamilton’s inferior in the latter respect. But he was especially strong
in his thorough comprehension of the desires of the people and in his
ability to criticise political institutions and measures. He believed in
democracy and wished government to be simple in every respect. Being
suspicious by nature, he thought that Hamilton and the Federalists were
aiming to establish a strong republic that might develop into a
monarchy. In order to oppose them, he drew together all the dissatisfied
elements in the country, as well as all the advocates of a simple,
popular government, into a party soon known as the
Democratic-Republicans. Under one name or another, the two parties
formed under Hamilton and Jefferson have existed to our own day. The two
Secretaries naturally opposed each other in the Cabinet,[108] and
Washington had a hard task in forcing them to work together. Finally
Jefferson, who had indiscreetly used the newspapers against the
administration, desired to resign and return to his home at
Monticello,[109] and Washington let him go. After this, as we have just
seen, the President allowed Hamilton more and more power, and the
administration became practically a Federalist one, although its head
was still superior to mere party considerations.
DIFFICULTIES OF ADMINISTRATION.
=269. Washington’s First Term.=—At the appointed time, before the
expiration of his first term, Washington was elected unanimously for a
second. During his first term, in which North Carolina and Rhode Island
were reconciled to the Union, and Vermont and Kentucky added to it, only
two events of great importance took place. These were St. Clair’s defeat
and the outbreak of the French Revolution. This latter event was
destined to complicate domestic politics in America after Washington had
begun his second administration.
=270. St. Clair’s Defeat.=—The Northwestern Indians had been giving
trouble since 1786, and in 1791 had destroyed the settlement of Big
Bottom, in Ohio. In order to check them, it was determined to construct
a line of forts from Cincinnati to Lake Michigan. General Arthur St.
Clair, governor of the Northwest Territory, was beginning the work when
he was entrapped in ambush, and suffered a crushing defeat (1791). He
resigned, and Washington, who was moved to indignation and grief by the
catastrophe, appointed “Mad Anthony” Wayne, another Revolutionary
veteran, as his successor (§ 198). Wayne, a thorough soldier, proceeded
cautiously, and two years later (1793) broke the power of the tribes in
a battle near Vincennes. The treaty of Greenville (1795) relieved
eastern Ohio from Indian menaces.
=271. Genet’s Indiscretions.=—Early in 1793 war was declared between
France and England, and the Democratic-Republican party wished to
involve America in the struggle, directly or indirectly, in the
interests of her former ally. We had a treaty binding us to defend
French colonies, like those in the West Indies, but this treaty had been
concluded with the French monarchy, not with the Republic that had
overthrown Louis XVI. After some discussion in the Cabinet, Washington
issued a proclamation of strict neutrality, which naturally disappointed
the French revolutionists greatly. Their minister to America, Edmond
Charles Genet, landed in Charleston and began to fit out privateers and
enlist men in plain defiance of the President’s proclamation. He counted
on the sympathy of the people with France, and was, indeed, received
with enthusiasm by many visionary citizens. But Washington stopped his
privateers, and treated all his demands with such firmness that he soon
lost ground. He had the insolence to make a public appeal against the
administration. This foolhardy act could lead to but one result—his
recall, at the request of the United States. Genet, however, though
recalled, chose not to run the risk of returning to France, where the
guillotine was in full operation.
[Illustration: JOHN JAY.]
=272. Jay’s Treaty.=—One of the chief events of Washington’s second
administration was the ratification of the treaty with Great Britain,
which bears the name of the statesman who negotiated it—John Jay,[110]
then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. There were various restrictions
placed by England upon America’s trade, and the ships of the latter were
being captured during the war then in progress between Great Britain and
France. Native-born Americans were frequently taken from the decks of
their country’s merchant vessels and pressed into the British naval
service, on the pretense that they were really British born. As the two
nations spoke the same language, it was often difficult to prove that
this impressment was illegal. There were other troubles, connected with
the failure of the British to abandon frontier posts, with boundary
disputes, and with unpaid claims; hence there was much popular feeling
against Great Britain. Jay, after great trouble, negotiated in the
autumn of 1794 a treaty which removed some grievances, such as the
unlawful occupation by the British of military posts upon American soil,
but did not much improve the condition of trade, nor abate the
impressment nuisance. Washington, although he was disappointed, thought
that even such a treaty for twelve years would be better than a war with
England. He called an extra session of the Senate in June, 1795, and
after a hot debate, the treaty, slightly altered, was confirmed. There
was great popular displeasure about the matter, and Jay and Washington
were bitterly reviled, but in the end it was seen that they had acted
wisely.
=273. The Whisky Rebellion.=—Another event of importance was an
insurrection in western Pennsylvania in the summer and autumn of 1794,
commonly known as “The Whisky Rebellion.” The moderate excise tax on
whisky had outraged the rough frontiersmen of the district, since they
made the liquor easily and could purchase goods in exchange for it.[111]
They threatened the tax collectors in mobs, and finally blood was shed,
in July, 1794. Great excitement followed, and the government mail was
robbed. Then the President called out the militia from Pennsylvania and
neighboring states, and fifteen thousand men were marched over the
region, encountering no opposition, and making only a few arrests. Two
rough fellows were convicted of treason, but Washington pardoned them,
and the insurrection was at an end.
[Illustration: MOUNT VERNON.]
=274. Washington Refuses a Third Term.=—In 1796, in his famous
“Farewell Address,” Washington declined reëlection for a third term,
thus setting a precedent which has been followed ever since. He served
his country from the spring of 1789 to that of 1797. During his second
term his political assailants were especially venomous.[112] As
criticism hurt him sorely, he was glad to lay down his office, and
retire to Mount Vernon, particularly as it seemed that the new
government was now stable enough to be able to exist without him.
* * * * *
REFERENCES.—GENERAL WORKS which should be consulted in
connection with Chapters XIII.–XVII.: W. Macdonald, _Select
Documents of United States History, 1776–1861_; J. Schouler,
_History of the United States_ (6 vols.); J. B. McMaster, _A
History of the People of the United States_ (to 1830, 5 vols.);
J. Winsor, _The Narrative and Critical History of America_ (8
vols.); H. von Holst, _The Constitutional History of the United
States_ (8 vols.); G. Tucker, _The History of the United States_
(4 vols.); Bryant and Gay, _A Popular History of the United
States_ (4 vols.); R. Hildreth, _The History of the United
States_ (1492–1821, 6 vols.); A. B. Hart, _Formation of the
Union_, chaps. vii.–xi.; F. A. Walker, _Making of the Union_
(“American History Series”); J. W. Burgess, _The Middle Period_,
chap. i. (“American History Series”).
SPECIAL WORKS IN CONNECTION WITH CHAPTER XII.: H. C. Lodge,
_George Washington_, Vol. II., _Alexander Hamilton_; J. T.
Morse, _Thomas Jefferson_; S. H. Gay, _James Madison_ (these are
in the “American Statesmen” series). See also other biographies
of these four statesmen and their collected writings, as well as
the _Messages of the Presidents_.
-----
[104] New York City was the temporary capital until 1790, when
Philadelphia took its place. In 1800 the government was moved to
Washington, which at the time contained few houses.
[105] General Henry Knox of Massachusetts was the first Secretary of War
and was also intrusted with the charge of naval affairs. The Navy
Department was not established until 1798. Edmund Randolph of Virginia
was the first Attorney-General. The two most important secretaryships
were those of State and of Treasury respectively (§§ 267, 268). The
Cabinet officers did not obtain the privilege of appearing before
Congress in order to explain and defend the measures advocated by them.
Thus an important variation from British parliamentary government was
introduced. Another variation has come about through the fact that the
Speaker of the House, who was at first an impartial moderator, has
become for three quarters of a century the most influential of party
leaders through his privilege of appointing all committees.
[106] Jefferson was chiefly instrumental in obtaining this compromise.
[107] Of these twelve proposed amendments, ten were ratified in 1791.
They form a Bill of Rights. A few years later an eleventh was added in
order to prevent states from being sued by citizens, and a twelfth, as
we shall soon see, in order to avoid deadlocks in the election of a
President. At this point the practice of amending the Constitution
stopped until after the Civil War. Cumbrous formalities had to be gone
through, and it was soon found that the decisions of the Supreme Court
in constitutional questions were the best means of making the
Constitution a flexible instrument capable of adapting itself to the
changing needs of the country.
[108] Jefferson wrote that they were pitted against each other like
cocks in a cockpit.
[109] In Albemarle County, Virginia.
[110] Born, 1745; died, 1829. Graduated at King’s (now Columbia)
College, 1766; member of committee of correspondence and of the First
Continental Congress, 1774; wrote _Address to the People of Great
Britain_ in 1774; was member of the Second Congress, and was chief
justice of New York in 1777; was associated with Franklin and Adams in
negotiating treaty with France; secretary of foreign affairs, 1784–1789;
wrote at least five of the essays in _The Federalist_; member of the New
York Constitutional Convention, 1788; appointed by Washington first
Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, 1789; after
negotiating “Jay’s Treaty,” was governor of New York, 1795–1801.
[111] The internal revenue tax on spirits still produces lawlessness
among the mountaineers of the Southern states.
[112] To Governor Trumbull of Connecticut, who had urged Washington to
run for a third term, the President replied that if the Democrats were
to put up a broomstick against him as candidate they would be
victorious. See Fisher’s _Life of Trumbull_, Appendix.
CHAPTER XIV.
=THE ADMINISTRATION OF JOHN ADAMS, 1797–1801.=
A PERIOD OF DISSENSIONS.
[Illustration: JOHN ADAMS.]
=275. The Election of John Adams.=—Washington’s refusal of a third term
and retirement to Mount Vernon, brought John Adams[113] to the front as
the natural choice of the Federalists for President. Hamilton, as we
have seen (§ 267), was out of the question, and the services of
Massachusetts’ great son during the Revolution ranked next to those of
Washington now that Franklin was dead. The Democratic-Republicans
naturally favored Jefferson; but there was no such elaborate campaign
between the rivals as there is in our day. As the electoral system then
stood, the person receiving the highest number of votes in the Electoral
College became President, the person receiving the next highest number,
Vice President. Hamilton tried by an intrigue to get Thomas Pinckney, of
South Carolina, who was the Federalist candidate for Vice President,
elected President over Adams. His scheme failed, however, for
Pennsylvania and the South voted for Jefferson, who thus secured 69
votes to Adams’s 71. Jefferson, therefore, became Vice President.
Congress divided, the Senate continuing Federalist, but both parties
being so nearly even in the House that a few moderate
Democratic-Republicans held the balance of power.
=276. The X. Y. Z. Affair.=—Adams took over Washington’s Cabinet, from
which Hamilton had retired in 1795. In so doing he made a mistake, since
the Secretaries regarded Hamilton as the leader of their party, and
indulged in intrigues against their lawful chief. The new President also
tried to carry out Washington’s general policy, and found himself
hampered, especially with regard to France. The French had not liked the
treaty the United States had concluded with their enemies, the British,
through the diplomacy of Jay, and they had been imprudently dealt with
by the American minister, James Monroe. Monroe’s successor, Charles
Cotesworth Pinckney[114] of South Carolina, was not well treated in
France, and at once informed Adams that the French Directory would not
receive another Minister from the United States until their grievances
were redressed. Adams immediately called a special session of Congress,
but was wise enough to send over John Marshall of Virginia and Elbridge
Gerry of Massachusetts to act with Pinckney as commissioners. Nearly a
year later news was received that an attempt had been made to make the
commissioners, who had not been officially received, offer money for
securing a settlement of the trouble. In other words, American envoys
had been told that they must commit the crime of bribery if they wished
to serve their country effectively. The names of the persons making
these insulting demands were veiled under the letters X. Y. Z.—hence
the matter is known as the X. Y. Z. Affair. Adams and the people at
large resented this treatment of the commissioners, and a war with
France was imminent. Indeed in July, 1798, American vessels of war were
authorized to attack French men-of-war, and a French frigate was
actually taken in February, 1799. Washington was made commander in chief
of the land forces with Hamilton as second in command, but neither had
occasion to serve actively.
[Illustration: CHARLES COTESWORTH PINCKNEY.]
=277. The Alien and Sedition Laws.=—Meanwhile Adams and the
Federalists, who had the sympathy of the country in the impending war,
speedily lost it by passing the famous “Alien and Sedition Laws.” The
editors of the Republican press, being in many cases foreign-born, had
been friendly to France since the days of the French Revolution and of
Genet’s mission, and had attacked Adams and his party violently. The
Federalists, believing that the liberties of the country would be
destroyed if this license were not checked, not only passed a rigid
naturalization law, but also one providing for the removal from the
country of dangerous aliens designated by the President.
=278. Features of the Sedition Law.=—To this act against foreigners,
which was tyrannical in theory although not in practice, an even worse
law was added relative to sedition. It was designed to punish persons
who conspired in order to resist the government’s measures or to
intimidate officeholders. It was also aimed at persons guilty of
libeling the government, Congress, or the President. Practically this
was to gag the press in the interest of the Federalist party. The first
conspicuously effective use of the law was made against an obnoxious
Republican editor named Callender. But the journalists took shelter
behind public opinion, and the Federalists soon found to their sorrow
that they had gone too far in their attack on popular liberties.
=279. The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions.=—Jefferson led the
resistance to the unpopular law, and as he could hope to do nothing with
Congress until a new election, he turned to the state legislatures. In
those of Virginia and Kentucky, in the fall of 1798, resolutions were
adopted, since known as the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. These
declared that, as the Constitution was a compact between the states, the
latter have individually the right to pass judgment upon the enactments
of the general government, which derives its power to make laws from the
Constitution. In pursuance of this assumed right the legislatures
representing the two states pronounced the Alien and Sedition Acts
unconstitutional and void and called on other states to do likewise. In
1799 the Kentucky legislature passed a second series, which declared
that all acts of the general government unauthorized by the Constitution
ought to be nullified by the states. The immediate object and effect of
these resolutions was to render the Alien and Sedition Laws unpopular
and suspected. The chief effect, however, was seen later to lie in the
support given by the names of Madison and Jefferson, authors
respectively of the Virginia and Kentucky series, to the theory of the
“compact” origin of the government and to the subsequent Carolina
doctrine of nullification.
=280. Dissensions in the Cabinet.=—While the Federalists were defeating
themselves by the laws they passed, Adams was dividing them by his
policy. In order to conclude a new treaty with France, he nominated a
minister to that country without consulting his Cabinet. This not only
alienated his Secretaries still more, but also irritated those
Federalists who had wished to fight France. Relations became so strained
in the Cabinet that Timothy Pickering, a friend of Hamilton’s, had to be
replaced, as Secretary of State, by John Marshall. But Adams secured his
treaty (1800) through a commission of three, instead of through the
Minister he had at first nominated.
=281. The Presidential Election of 1800.=—As a new election was
approaching, Hamilton again tried to oust Adams as leader of the
Federalists, but failed. Adams, with C. C. Pinckney for a colleague,
received the votes of the Federalist electors but was defeated by
Jefferson by eight votes (seventy-three to sixty-five). Unfortunately,
however, Aaron Burr, the New York Democratic-Republican, who was
supported for Vice President, got the same number of votes as Jefferson,
which threw the election into the House of Representatives, where the
Federalists had a majority. There was great confusion, and for a time it
looked as if Burr, who was thought to be unprincipled, would be chosen.
It was even believed by some persons that the Federalists would be able
to keep themselves in power on the plea that old officials must hold
over until new ones were legally elected. But Hamilton at last supported
Jefferson, as the lesser of two evils, and through the votes of moderate
Federalist congressmen, like James A. Bayard of Delaware, the Virginia
statesman was elected. This solution of the problem was most fortunate,
as Jefferson was plainly the choice of the people, and as civil war
might have followed a successful plot to deprive him of the Presidency.
As a result of the complication, the Twelfth Amendment was adopted in
1804, making it incumbent upon electors to vote specifically for a
President and a Vice President. Just before retiring from office, in
March, 1801, Adams made a number of appointments to office, known as the
“midnight appointments.” These, as we shall see, caused Jefferson much
vexation. It was not altogether fair for Adams thus to hamper his
successor, nor should the Federalist President have shown his vexation
at the result of the election by driving out of Washington early in the
morning of March 4 in order not to be obliged to attend Jefferson’s
inauguration. Adams and the Federalists generally believed, however,
that Jefferson and the Republicans would begin a reign of anarchy, and
some allowance must be made for what was, nevertheless, an act of great
discourtesy. It is pleasant to add that the strained relations between
the two statesmen were entirely mended before their deaths.
* * * * *
REFERENCES.—GENERAL WORKS: same as for Chapter XIII.
SPECIAL WORKS: same as for Chapter XIII., with the addition of:
J. T. Morse, _John Adams_ (“American Statesmen”); C. F. Adams,
_John Adams_. See also the collected writings of John Adams; and
E. D. Warfield, _Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions_.
-----
[113] Born at Braintree, Massachusetts, October 31, 1735; died at
Quincy, once part of Braintree, July 4, 1826. He practiced law and took
active part in agitation against the Stamp Act; wrote much against
British treatment of colonies; served prominently in First and Second
Continental Congresses; did much to secure the adoption of the
Declaration of Independence; sent as Commissioner to France, 1777;
negotiated Dutch loan, 1780; Minister to Holland, 1781; one of the
negotiators of the Treaty of Paris, 1783; Minister to Great Britain,
1785; returned to America, 1788; Vice President, 1789–1797; President,
1797–1801; lived in retirement at Quincy till his death.
[114] Born in South Carolina, 1746; died, 1825. Attorney-general in
South Carolina, and member of the Provincial Congress, 1775; fought as
major at Brandywine, Germantown, and Charleston; member of the Federal
Convention of 1787; was sent on mission to France in 1796; in response
to efforts of the French to bribe the envoys, gave utterance to the
phrase, “millions for defense, but not a cent for tribute”; was
Federalist candidate for Vice President in 1800, and for President in
1804 and 1808.
[Illustration: UNITED STATES IN 1800]
CHAPTER XV.
=THE ADMINISTRATIONS OF JEFFERSON, 1801–1809.=
JEFFERSONIAN POLICY.
=282. Jefferson’s Character and General Policy.=—With the advent of the
popular Jefferson as President, the aristocratic Federalists, especially
those of New England, thought, as we have just seen, that anarchy would
ensue. Jefferson was supposed to be an opponent of all social
distinctions, of strong organized government, and even of religious
institutions. As a matter of fact, he was a widely cultured country
gentleman who had liberal political theories, a sympathy with the masses
of the people, especially the agriculturists, and a profound belief in
human capacity for progress. He was too suspicious, and he often lacked
dignity; he had no great executive ability and preferred rather to
manage than to command, but he understood the American people as perhaps
no other man has done. Furthermore, he gave in his writings the most
subtle and widely current exposition of general republican ideas that
has ever been given. He corresponded with leading men throughout the
country and by his letters molded public opinion. His accession to
power, so far from overthrowing the government, gave it a popular
support it could have received in no other way; and the successive
elections of his pupils, Madison and Monroe, kept the South and West
fairly in the Union until the central government became strong enough
under Jackson to crush incipient efforts to divide the nation. None of
these three Virginian Presidents was a commanding man, but all were
influential, and their policies made for harmony. Hence the period of
their administrations had an importance not at first perceived. They
helped to hold the agricultural slave-holding South in line with the
manufacturing and commercial North and East. They made mistakes, were
embarrassed by foreign complications and domestic difficulties, and had
to persuade instead of rule. But they represented both the Union and the
section that was most masterful and restive of control, and thus their
administrations formed a necessary stage in the nation’s evolution.
[Illustration: ALBERT GALLATIN.]
=283. The Revolution of 1801.=—Another point to be remembered about
these Presidents is the fact that they were all representative of the
educated upper classes, and yet were in full sympathy with the common
people, who had just obtained political control of the country. If they
had been demagogues or as ignorant of the principles of government as
many of their supporters, they might indeed have precipitated the reign
of anarchy the Federalists feared. On the contrary, they governed as
well as their aristocratic opponents could have done, and so the
Federalist party, which had succeeded so well in establishing the
government, but had unwisely ignored the wishes of the people, sank into
insignificance, without any serious detriment to the nation. The
Revolution of 1801, as the Democratic-Republican victory has been
called, was a beneficent one, chiefly because it took place under the
direction and control of trained statesmen.
[Illustration: JOHN MARSHALL.]
=284. Leading Public Men.=—Jefferson made a good beginning by
delivering a conciliatory inaugural address[115] and by not making a
wholesale removal of Federalist officeholders. Where commissions had not
been delivered to Adams’s late appointees, he withheld them, and he
removed obnoxious partisans, but on the whole his attitude toward the
civil service was fairly conservative. His Cabinet appointments were
good, and throughout his two terms he had the cordial support of his
subordinates. Madison, who was much under his influence, was a prudent
and able statesman, and made a dignified Secretary of State. Albert
Gallatin[116] of Pennsylvania, as Secretary of the Treasury, proved
himself second only to Hamilton as a financier. Gallatin was by birth a
Swiss, and is a striking example of what a foreign-born citizen of
integrity and talents can accomplish in free America. The leading man in
the House of Representatives was the Virginian, John Randolph of
Roanoke, one of the most brilliant and interesting figures in our
history. He was too independent and one-sided, however, to work long in
harmony with the administration, and became in course of time the most
bitter and effective of its opponents. Another Virginian, in the
judiciary department, was a formidable opponent of Jefferson. This was
John Marshall,[117] whom Adams, shortly before he left office, had made
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Marshall was a Federalist, and in
favor of giving the general government broader powers than Jefferson and
his party thought either right or expedient. The President and the great
jurist came often into conflict, as, for example, in the Burr trial (§
290); but on the whole the advantage rested with Marshall, since he
remained in office until his death, in 1835, and since his decisions
steadily helped to build up the power of the government.
MEASURES AND EVENTS.
[Illustration: STEPHEN DECATUR.]
=285. Financial Affairs and War with the Barbary States.=—One of the
first matters that occupied the new administration was the reduction of
taxes and the decrease of the public debt, which had grown rapidly in
consequence of the preparations for war with France. The army was
greatly reduced,[118] and much less was spent on the navy—a branch of
the service which had grown under Adams, but with which Jefferson, as an
agriculturist, had little sympathy. He endeavored to economize in other
ways, especially by doing away with internal taxes and with the
unnecessary judges added by the Federalists, but he naturally found that
the demands of a growing country had to be met. Still, the next ten
years were distinctly a period of retrenchment, in spite of the cost of
Louisiana and of the small war waged against the piratical Barbary
States (1801–1806). These “pests of Christendom” had become too impudent
in their demands for tribute in return for promised immunity of American
shipping in the Mediterranean, and they had to be brought to their
senses by the bombardment of Tripoli. The war furnished training to our
sailors, and gave Lieutenant Stephen Decatur[119] great fame for his
exploit in burning one of our frigates, so that she could be of no use
to the enemy.[120]
=286. The Louisiana Purchase.=—This purchase was the most important
feature of either of Jefferson’s administrations. The colony of
Louisiana, which comprised a vast stretch of territory west of the
Mississippi, had, as we have seen, been ceded by France to Spain in 1763
(§ 115). In 1800 Spain ceded it back to France. As the latter country
was far more powerful and dangerous than the former, and as the
ambitious Napoleon then ruled France, great alarm was felt in America at
the prospect of having a rival nation grow up across the Mississippi.
Affairs were made still more serious by the denial of the right of
depositing their goods at the port of New Orleans to the inhabitants of
our Western country. These citizens were thus unable to transfer their
merchandise from river boats to ocean vessels, and were cut off from
profitable markets. Even the pacific Jefferson took the alarm,[121] and
James Monroe of Virginia was dispatched to France to try to buy a strip
of territory including New Orleans. Because of the impending war between
Great Britain and France, and the consequent necessity of defending
Louisiana, and for other reasons, Napoleon just before Monroe’s arrival
made the regular American Minister, R. R. Livingston, an offer to sell
the whole Louisiana region. His offer was accepted, and the price was
set at fifteen million dollars, less certain claims against the French.
[Illustration: THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE]
=287. Controversy over the Purchase.=—Jefferson declared, consistently
with his own principles, that no power to acquire territory was allowed
the general government by the Constitution, and that therefore an
amendment must be made to that document in order that the purchase might
be valid. But an amendment would take time, and unless the bargain were
closed at once the new territory might be lost forever, especially as
Spain was indignant on account of Napoleon’s action. So the treaty was
ratified, and a strict constructionist President furnished a weighty
precedent to his political opponents. The latter, however, did not
perceive the value of Louisiana to the Union, and would have been better
pleased had Jefferson clung to his principles. Yet it is clear that he
was right, and the Federalists wrong. The contiguity of the territory
made it necessary that it should belong to the United States, and it was
better to buy it than to fight for it at some future day. It is true
that the boundaries of the region were unsettled, and were sure to cause
trouble, and that a spread of slavery was also involved. But the people
were wise when they indorsed Jefferson’s action by reëlecting him in
1804 by an overwhelming majority. Jefferson himself was wise in not
speculating whether or not the states formed west of the Mississippi
would adhere to the Union,—the Federalists feared they would not,—and
in having the new region explored by Lewis and Clark and Lieutenant
Pike. So great was the opposition of New England to this acquisition of
territory by the nation, that some Federalist leaders actually thought
that they might persuade the Eastern states to detach themselves from
the Union. Their schemes were abortive, but were destined soon to bear
bitter fruit (§§ 313-315).
=288. The Election of 1804.=—The election of 1804 was held under the
Twelfth Amendment (§ 281). Burr, who had endeavored to secure the
Presidency through Federalist help, and who was besides, as we have
seen, a suspicious character, was not available for reëlection to the
Vice Presidency. Jefferson was therefore given George Clinton, of New
York, as a colleague. The two Federalist candidates, C. C. Pinckney and
Rufus King of New York, received but fourteen electoral votes, so
complete was the demoralization of the party.
=289. Burr’s Conspiracy.=—Burr ran as an independent candidate for the
governorship of New York, but was defeated, again chiefly through the
instrumentality of Hamilton. In consequence, he picked a quarrel with
the latter, which led to a duel. Hamilton was killed at the first shot,
and the death of so brilliant a man in such a manner aroused the
indignation of the entire country.[122] Burr became almost an outcast.
As he was an ambitious schemer, he undertook in 1806 to induce a
secession of the Western states from the Union. He seems also to have
dreamed of playing the part of Napoleon in the New World, and of
establishing an empire in Texas or Mexico. He gained the support of a
well-to-do Irish gentleman named Blennerhassett, who helped to gather
arms and men in Ohio and Kentucky, and as a consequence ruined himself
and family. Burr also tampered with other leading citizens of the West,
particularly with General Wilkinson, the American commander at New
Orleans, who reported his schemes to Jefferson. After some delay, the
President made use of local militia, and Burr’s expedition was reduced
to a fiasco, only about one hundred men descending the Mississippi with
him. He finally abandoned these, and after some wandering in the almost
uninhabited territory that lay to the south of Tennessee, he was
captured and sent to Richmond, Virginia, for trial (1807).
=290. Burr’s Trial.=—Jefferson showed great interest in the case, and
almost seemed pitted against Chief Justice Marshall. The latter ordered
the President to appear as a witness, but the Executive very properly
refused to do anything beyond sending papers. Marshall declared that an
overt act of treason must be proved, but as Burr had not yet levied war
against the United States or adhered to their enemies,—actions
constituting treason according to the Constitution,—and as his
mustering of men had not taken place in Virginia, there was little or
nothing for the prosecuting attorneys to proceed on, and the case came
to an abrupt close. Marshall’s decision has probably done good in making
trials for treason practically unknown in the United States. But he can
hardly be acquitted of having allowed his feelings against Jefferson to
get the better of him. On the other hand, Jefferson had, in his
easy-going way, allowed Burr to go too far before interfering with his
plans. Burr himself went to England, then returned to New York, and soon
passed from public notice.
=291. The Impeachment of Justice Chase.=—Two years previous to the
miscarriage of justice in Burr’s case, another trial of a different
nature had failed almost as signally. This was the trial, before the
Senate, of Justice Samuel Chase of the Supreme Court. Chase was a
violent Federalist, who had been impeached by the Democratic-Republican
House of Representatives for partisan conduct on the bench. He was ably
defended, while John Randolph, who led the prosecution, completely
mismanaged his case. The result was a failure to convict (1805).
[Illustration: WILLIAM PITT THE YOUNGER.]
=292. Troubles with Great Britain and France.=—More serious matters now
confronted Jefferson. Since the signing of Jay’s Treaty, American
shipping had flourished, owing to the fact that being a neutral nation,
the United States could convey to France and Spain the produce of their
West Indian colonies, the ships of the two European countries not being
serviceable on account of the war with Great Britain, whose fleets swept
the ocean. By 1805, however, the jealousy of British shipowners had been
aroused and the Prime Minister, William Pitt the Younger, applied to
American vessels what was known as the “Rule of 1756.” This prevented a
neutral from enjoying, in time of war, trading privileges not allowed in
time of peace. British men-of-war, therefore, began to seize American
ships, and the old impressment abuses were increased. Meanwhile, Jay’s
Treaty expired, and a new treaty, signed by Monroe and William Pinkney,
a brilliant Maryland lawyer and orator, was not honorable to us and was
not even laid before the Senate. One provision of it ran, that Great
Britain would not be bound by it unless the United States undertook to
resist Napoleon’s Berlin Decree of November 21, 1806. This was a paper
blockade of the British Isles, in retaliation for the British blockade
of the Continent. In other words, Napoleon, who by that time had humbled
most of the sovereigns of Europe, had declared Continental ports closed
to British ships, although he had no effective means of keeping them
out. Great Britain wished to force America to take sides against France.
An Order in Council of November, 1807, actually authorized the seizure
of any neutral vessel on a voyage to closed ports, unless it had
previously touched at a British port. To this order Napoleon replied by
the Milan Decree (December, 1807), authorizing the capture of any vessel
that had entered a British port. Thus American neutral trade was
practically an impossibility, and an important portion of our population
was seriously affected.
[Illustration: FULTON’S STEAMBOAT, THE
“CLERMONT.”]
=293. The Embargo.=—Under these harassing circumstances, Jefferson was
forced to adopt a more energetic foreign policy than at all suited his
pacific disposition. Diplomatic efforts were wasted on headstrong
opponents, who despised a weak, young nation. So the Non-intercourse
Act, forbidding the importation of goods from Great Britain or her
colonies, was passed in the spring of 1806, but did not go into effect
for nearly two years; by 1808 it had been determined that mere
non-importation was not a sufficiently drastic remedy, and that an
embargo, forbidding all American vessels to leave for foreign ports, was
necessary. In the interim, relations with Great Britain had been
strained to the point of breaking, through the fact that on June 27,
1807, the British ship _Leopard_, acting under the orders of an admiral
at Halifax, fired on the American frigate _Chesapeake_, and took from
the latter four sailors, three of whom were American citizens.[123]
Jefferson at once ordered British warships out of American waters and
tried to bring the impressment controversy to an issue, but the British
merely disavowed the action of their admiral. This conduct, together
with the Order in Council of November, 1807, precipitated the Embargo.
[Illustration: ROBERT FULTON.]
=294. Nature and Object of the Embargo.=—The Embargo was partly
intended to save the lives and property of the Americans—who were,
nevertheless, willing to risk both on account of the great profits
accruing from trade with Europe—by preventing ships from leaving port
and running the risk of being captured by British men-of-war, or of
being confiscated in Continental ports. Jefferson, however, had another
object in view. He believed that both England and Europe would suffer so
much from the loss of the American trade that the combatants would be
forced to abandon their repressive measures against the ships of
neutrals. He miscalculated the stubbornness and malignity of both
parties, and both Non-intercourse and Embargo, instead of proving
coercive, proved irritating and mischievous. Nevertheless, there was
precedent in favor of the experiment, and from the point of view of
general human welfare Jefferson was justified in trying it. From the
point of view of politics, the experiment was disastrous, but the fact
that he induced Congress to adopt it is a conclusive proof of
Jefferson’s capacity to control men.
=295. Difficulty of Enforcing the Embargo.=—It proved very difficult,
however, to enforce such legislation, for the Federalists made capital
out of it, while Jefferson’s Southern supporters upheld it against their
wills. New England ships rotted at their wharves, and in Virginia the
staple tobacco remained unsold. Jefferson was overwhelmed with petitions
to change his policy, but held out persistently. The British government
also held to its former course and Napoleon to his. Before Jefferson’s
second term had expired, it was quite clear that new measures must be
tried in order to assert the nation’s dignity abroad and to secure civil
peace at home. The pupil Madison, who became President in 1809, had to
undo in part, at least, the work of the master.
CHARACTER OF JEFFERSON’S STATESMANSHIP.
[Illustration: ELI WHITNEY.]
=296. General View of Jefferson’s Administrations.=—Viewed as a whole,
Jefferson’s two administrations do not prove him to have been a great
executive. He was a political philosopher rather than a practical
statesman. He was more at home with ideas than with facts. But by his
purchase of Louisiana he saved the country far more than his ineffective
diplomacy and his Embargo cost it, and he proved conclusively that
democracy was not contradictory to the idea of union. He proved also
that the responsibilities of office are likely always to prevent a
theorist from going to extremes; for, although the father of the strict
constructionists of the Constitution, he left them the difficult task of
explaining at least one very loose construction of his own. Perhaps at
another period his weakness might not have been apparent. He was
intellectually far in advance of his countrymen, and was thus an object
of suspicion to many worthy citizens of a land which had then done
little for the cause of letters or of science. On the other hand, he
only slowly and partly outgrew the prejudices of the agricultural class
to which he belonged. It was not until late in life that he showed
sympathy with the manufacturing and commercial enterprise which was
destined in a few years to make the country of Robert Fulton[124] and
Eli Whitney[125] one of the wealthiest and most prosperous nations in
the world.
=297. Jefferson an Idealist.=—Americans have been right in recognizing
in Jefferson their main political spokesman. No other man has ever so
thoroughly brought the people to his way of thinking, or so completely
held his own with politicians of all degrees of ability and ambition.
Congress followed his lead almost blindly, even in military matters,
about which he knew little. His popularity speedily recovered from the
decline it experienced during the days of the Embargo, and for nearly
twenty years his home at Monticello was almost like a pilgrim’s shrine.
His fame has suffered at the hands of some historians, but it is not
unlikely that posterity will conclude that he was in advance not merely
of his age, but of his century.
* * * * *
REFERENCES.—GENERAL WORKS: same as for Chapter XIII., with the
addition of: Henry Adams, _History of the United States_
(1800–1817, 9 vols.).
SPECIAL WORKS: J. Schouler, _Thomas Jefferson_ (“Makers of
America”); H. S. Randall, _Thomas Jefferson_ (3 vols.); J.
Parton, _Thomas Jefferson_, _Aaron Burr_; Henry Adams, _Albert
Gallatin_, _John Randolph_ (“American Statesmen”); A. B.
Magruder, _John Marshall_ (“American Statesmen”). See also T.
Roosevelt, _Winning of the West_, Vol. IV.; and the writings of
Jefferson, Madison, and Gallatin. E. E. Hale’s _Philip Nolan’s
Friends_ deals with Burr’s Conspiracy, and G. W. Cable’s
_Grandissimes_ with New Orleans shortly after the American
occupation.
-----
[115] This address is still often quoted, especially by leaders of the
Democratic party, and it deserves to be carefully read by all who desire
to understand the cardinal principles of Jefferson’s political
philosophy. Many of its phrases have become political maxims to which
members of every party would subscribe.
[116] Born at Geneva, Switzerland, 1761; died at Astoria, Long Island,
1849. Was educated at Geneva, and came to America, 1780; settled as
manufacturer in Pennsylvania in 1784; rose rapidly as leader of the
Democratic-Republican party; in national House of Representatives,
1795–1801; showed great ability, especially on financial topics; was
made Secretary of the Treasury by Jefferson; held the position from 1801
to 1813; was peace commissioner in negotiating Treaty of Ghent,
1813–1814; Minister to France, 1816–1823; envoy extraordinary to Great
Britain in 1826; became bank president in New York City.
[117] Born, 1755; died, 1835. The greatest of American jurists; served
as soldier at Brandywine and Monmouth; contended successfully against
Patrick Henry in behalf of a ratification of the Constitution in 1788;
was envoy to France with Gerry and Pinckney, 1797; congressman,
1799–1800; Secretary of State, 1800–1801; Chief Justice of Supreme Court
from 1801 till his death.
[118] Yet West Point was founded in 1802.
[119] Born in Maryland, 1779; died, 1820. Began service in the navy,
1798; distinguished himself against Tripoli in 1804; commanded the
Atlantic squadron in 1812, and captured the British ship _Macedonian_;
humbled the Barbary States in 1815; was navy commissioner from 1816 to
1820, when he was killed in a duel with Commodore Barron, who had been
found by court-martial guilty of negligence in commanding the
_Chesapeake_ against the _Leopard_ (§ 293).
[120] The _Philadelphia_, commanded by Captain Bainbridge, while
pursuing a frigate of the enemy, ran upon a rock off the Tripolitan
coast and was captured, along with her captain and crew, November 1,
1804. Attempts to liberate the prisoners failed, and they were not
released for nearly two years. But Decatur, in the ketch _Intrepid_,
ventured one dark night into the harbor of Tripoli and destroyed the
_Philadelphia_, under the fire of the enemy’s batteries.
[121] Jefferson had long been friendly to France and more or less
hostile to Great Britain, but when he heard that the former power had
acquired Louisiana, he wrote: “The day that France takes possession of
New Orleans fixes the sentence which is to restrain her forever within
her low-water mark. From that moment we must marry ourselves to the
British fleet and nation.”
[122] Among the people of the Northern states dueling was practically
put a stop to by Hamilton’s death.
[123] The _Chesapeake_ was taken by surprise, and Commodore Barron had
no time to make an effective resistance.
[124] Born in Pennsylvania, 1765; died, 1815. Student of portrait
painting; went to England in 1786; soon began to study engineering and
inventions; was in France, 1797–1804, where he invented a torpedo which
he vainly tried to induce Napoleon to adopt; failed in a similar attempt
in Great Britain, 1804–1806; returned to New York, 1807; devised and
successfully propelled his steamboat _Clermont_ from New York to Albany
in 1807—the beginning of successful navigation by steam.
[125] Born in Connecticut, 1765; died, 1825. Invented the cotton gin in
1793, which increased enormously the importance of slave labor by
raising the cotton crop in ten years from about two hundred thousand
pounds to more than forty-two million pounds a year. Also established
near New Haven, Connecticut, the first arms factory in the country.
CHAPTER XVI.
=THE ADMINISTRATIONS OF MADISON, 1809–1817.=
OUTBREAK OF WAR.
=298. Madison’s Perplexities.=—Just before Madison’s accession to the
Presidency the Embargo was supplanted by a non-intercourse law which
permitted trade with nations not controlled by France or Great Britain.
This legitimate trade and the large amount of fraudulent shipping that
went on brought temporary wealth to American shipowners, and there even
seemed to be a prospect of a treaty with Great Britain. People began to
say that Madison was a better President than his predecessor, who
continued to advise him. As a matter of fact, he was a weaker man, had a
poorer Cabinet, and was soon involved in greater difficulties than those
encountered by Jefferson. For British statesmanship was at that time at
a very low ebb; the concessions agreed to by Erskine, the British envoy,
were disavowed at home, and a new envoy actually ventured to insult
Madison by accusing him of deception in negotiations relating to the
prospective treaty. Yet party politics were at a still lower ebb in this
country, as is shown by the fact that the Federalists showered social
attentions on James Jackson, the envoy who had so grossly insulted the
President. Nevertheless Congress, tired of legislation that seemed to
produce no effect either on England or on France, did away with
non-intercourse, with the proviso that if one of the two contending
powers annulled its vexatious decrees and the other did not,
non-intercourse should be maintained with the nation still holding out
(“Macon’s Bill,” No. 2, May 1, 1810). Napoleon took advantage of this
proviso, although really showing America very little favor. He showed
enough, however, to make Great Britain appear most in the wrong, and on
November 1, 1810, Madison issued a proclamation declaring trade
suspended with that power. This was a sorry commentary on the
proclamation of the preceding April renewing trade with Great Britain;
for the sole result of the diplomacy of the year had been to let loose
more American ships to be captured by the British or confiscated by the
French.
[Illustration: JOHN C. CALHOUN.]
=299. War Advocated.=—Madison, who was prudent like Jefferson, and who
was more of a student of politics than a vigorous man of affairs, did
not desire war with either Great Britain or France any more than
Jefferson had done, but he was forced into hostilities with the former
power before the close of his first administration. The temper of the
American people had been sorely tried by the Embargo and the
non-intercourse policy as well as by British arrogance throughout the
whole controversy. British statesmen spoke ill of Americans when they
should have tried to enlist their sympathies in the war Great Britain
was waging against despotism personified in Napoleon. The British were
also thought to have stirred up the Western Indians, who were crushed on
Tippecanoe River by General William Henry Harrison in 1811. The Western
people were thus greatly embittered against Great Britain, and Henry
Clay of Kentucky represented their feelings when, as Speaker of the new
House of Representatives, he helped to force Madison into consenting to
war. With Clay were joined many young, high-spirited men, some of whom,
like John C. Calhoun[126] of South Carolina, while adhering to the
Jefferson-Madison school of politics, were inclined to be impatient with
their more cautious elders. It is said that they threatened Madison with
loss of a second term if he would not agree to war with Great
Britain.[127] Their policy eventually proved beneficial to the country,
since it strengthened the national spirit and showed that the new
generation contained men too strong to be bound by the traditions of the
Revolutionary period; but it was tardy and lacking in cosmopolitan
breadth of view.
=300. Outlook for the War of 1812.=—Not only was the War of 1812 a
political blunder in so far as it helped Napoleon by harassing Great
Britain, but also owing to the condition of America at the time of its
inception. The national finances were by no means adequate to its cost,
and the incompetence of Gallatin’s successor in the Treasury Department
made the borrowing that had to be undertaken especially burdensome. The
army, too, was small and poorly officered at the first. The volunteers
were brave and in the West were very anxious to serve, but they and
their leaders absurdly overrated the ease with which Canada could be
conquered. Henry Clay actually boasted that his Kentucky constituents
could accomplish this exploit without assistance. Besides, the political
discontent of New England, where the Federalists were English
sympathizers, and where much capital was invested in shipping which
would be cooped up during the war, made it difficult to secure militia
from the very portion of the country nearest the chief seat of
operations. Volunteers were indeed obtained from New England, and after
a while both officers and men made a better showing in the field. But
when all is said, the land operations of the war, except in the splendid
instance of the battle of New Orleans, afford little cause for patriotic
gratification. A prediction to this effect might have been made about
the navy, for the less than two score American vessels seemed but a
bagatelle in comparison with the British navy, which contained about
fifty times as many.[128] But in the end the exploits of our seamen
formed almost the sole bright spot in an exceedingly gloomy period.
=301. Opening of the War.=—War was formally declared on June 18, 1812,
the majority in neither house being overwhelming. Two days previously
the obnoxious Orders in Council had been revoked. Although the news was
received on this side of the ocean before hostilities had fairly begun,
the government adhered to its tardy determination to fight. This course
seemed justifiable since the impressment trouble and the blockade of the
coasts still called for redress, and the temper of at least a part of
the nation had been inflamed.
[Illustration: OPERATIONS IN CANADA,
1812–1814.]
=302. Hull’s Surrender.=—It was easy to perceive from the outset that
the theater of the war on land would be much the same as in the French
and Indian War—that is, it would stretch along our northern boundary
from Maine to Lake Michigan. The main attacks by the Americans would be
made through Lakes Ontario and Champlain. At first, bodies of troops
were moved over the border from Detroit and Buffalo. General William
Hull, the governor of Michigan Territory, who led the first advance with
over two thousand troops, mainly volunteers from Ohio, was ignominiously
repulsed by the Canadians and surrendered Detroit in a cowardly manner
(August 16, 1812), for which he was afterward court-martialed and found
guilty. Hull had issued a very boastful proclamation on his entry into
Canada, and his surrender of an important fortress without firing a gun
was almost unpardonable, in view of such high-flown pretensions.
Altogether, the Canadians under Isaac Brock, the able governor of Upper
Canada, with their allies, the Indians under Tecumseh, a famous warrior
and the inveterate foe of the Americans, had outmaneuvered their
opponents, and proved conclusively that the volunteers, rapidly
gathering in Ohio and Kentucky, would have to be well led in order to
secure any success. To get such leaders was not easy, but Madison
finally selected the right man in General William Henry Harrison, the
victor at Tippecanoe (§ 299). It was late in the year, however, and the
country was a very difficult one to penetrate. The impatient public had
therefore to wait quietly for the success that was to retrieve the early
losses, among which may be mentioned the capture of Fort Dearborn, on
the site of the present city of Chicago.
=303. Other Defeats.=—Meanwhile General Van Rensselaer, of the New York
militia, had gathered about six thousand eager men, and on October 13
was forced, by the general impatience for a victory, prematurely to
cross the Niagara River from Lewiston to Queenstown. Hull’s surrender
had left Brock free to manage the Canadian defense. The American
regulars fought well, but the militia crossed only in part, and the
result was another surrender. Yet the enemy also suffered heavily, for
the brave Brock fell defending the heights of Queenstown, where his tall
monument may now be seen. Van Rensselaer, for his part, resigned, and
was succeeded by the still less capable General Alexander Smyth, who
imitated Hull in bragging and in ineffectiveness, but who dismissed his
volunteers to their homes instead of surrendering them. Equally futile
were the attempts to reach Canada by way of Lake Champlain; and the year
would have ended in complete gloom, so far as land operations were
concerned, had not the Americans, in their turn, repulsed an invading
force at Ogdensburg. In the latter fight Jacob Brown, a Quaker farmer of
New York, showed that he was the coming general for the war in the
northeast, if that war were to be carried on seriously and not with
manifestoes and ill-directed sallies of raw troops. Another soldier of
merit was also discovered in the person of Lieutenant Colonel Winfield
Scott, a young Virginian who fought finely at Queenstown Heights.
EXPLOITS OF THE NAVY.
[Illustration: CAPTAIN ISAAC HULL.]
=304. The War at Sea.=—On the sea, events took a different turn from
the first, although the government’s main intention was to use its few
ships[129] in guarding the chief ports. On August 19, 1812, Captain
Isaac Hull[130] of the frigate _Constitution_[131] (44 guns), which had
previously been chased into Boston by a British squadron, met in the
Gulf of St. Lawrence the enemy’s _Guerrière_ (38 guns), which had made
an unsavory reputation for itself by searching American vessels. The
American ship was somewhat the stronger, but no one could have foreseen
that she would overcome her adversary within half an hour. About two
months later (October 18), in a very similar contest, the American sloop
of war _Wasp_ (18 guns), under Captain Jacob Jones, took the British
brig _Frolic_ (20 guns). In consequence of these unexpected victories
Great Britain’s naval prestige was greatly shaken and American pride
correspondingly stimulated. Analysis has shown that the results were
mainly due to the better gunnery of the Americans. Equally fortunate for
the younger nation were the fights between the frigate _United States_
(44 guns), under Captain Decatur (§ 285, note 1), and the British
frigate _Macedonian_ (38 guns); and between the _Constitution_, then
under Captain Bainbridge, and the British _Java_. The former contest
took place near the Madeiras, on October 25; the latter, off the coast
of Brazil, on December 29, 1812. Congress immediately authorized the
building of new ships, and while the British were able to sweep American
commerce from the seas, the people consoled themselves with the thought
of the superb victories of their ships and of the damage American
privateers were doing English shipping on every ocean and sea—even
within Dublin Bay itself. At last, however, reverses came, when, in
1813, the _Chesapeake_[132] was captured by the British _Shannon_, and
when our ships were blockaded in our chief harbors. But the privateers
continued their exploits until they raised British rates of insurance on
trading vessels to a very high percentage.
[Illustration: THE “CONSTITUTION.”]
[Illustration: CAPTAIN JAMES LAWRENCE.]
=305. Victories of Perry and Harrison.=—Meanwhile the war was not
popular in Great Britain or in New England. The South and West still
favored it, however, and Congress helped Madison by allowing him to use
twenty new regiments of regulars in place of volunteers. A new Secretary
of War, General Armstrong, late minister to France, took the place of
Eustis, who was unfitted to cope with the difficulties of the position.
But the year was to witness few signal successes beyond an important
victory on Lake Erie that led to the retaking of Detroit. Captain Oliver
H. Perry[133] had a flotilla constructed at Presque Isle (now Erie), and
on September 10 met and defeated the British flotilla under Captain
Barclay. The British had more guns, but the Americans, after Perry had
been obliged to abandon his flagship, gained a complete victory through
their courage and skill. Perry, who was coöperating with Harrison, wrote
the latter on the back of an old letter, “We have met the enemy and they
are ours.” Harrison’s army, helped by the American ships, then passed to
Detroit and afterward landed in Canada, where, at the battle of the
Thames River, the British, under Colonel Proctor and their Indian
allies, were completely routed (October 5). Tecumseh fell in this fight,
and a portion of Upper Canada passed under American control, Michigan
having been, of course, regained.[134]
REVERSES AND SUCCESSES.
[Illustration: CAPTAIN OLIVER H. PERRY.]
=306. American Failures.=—A great invasion of Canada and the seizure of
Montreal had been planned for 1813, but it was partly abandoned, General
Dearborn seizing only a few places, including York (now Toronto), which
was unnecessarily burned. Brown, Scott, and others showed that American
soldiers could be brave, but the campaign was on the whole a failure.
General Wilkinson then succeeded Dearborn, but, like the latter, was too
old for the work, and was besides at loggerheads with Secretary
Armstrong and with his second in command, General Wade Hampton of South
Carolina. An attack on Montreal or else on Kingston was planned, but
Armstrong mixed matters up by assuming the command. Hampton failed to
coöperate with Wilkinson, who had had a hard time descending the St.
Lawrence, and the latter general was obliged to put his troops into
winter quarters with nothing accomplished. Meanwhile the force on the
weakened Niagara frontier had recrossed the river after burning the town
of Newark. The British retaliated in kind and with their Indian allies
did much damage on the American side of the river.
=307. Jackson and the Indians.=—While these events had been taking
place in the North, the Southwest had not been quiet. British and
Spanish emissaries were stirring up the Southern Indians to attack the
Americans. The Creeks had also been excited by Tecumseh, who used a
comet and an earthquake to work upon their superstitious fears. The
savages massacred the white settlers at Fort Mims, Alabama, on August
30, 1813, slaying or roasting to death four hundred persons. Retaliation
came swiftly. The Tennesseean volunteers under General Andrew Jackson
invaded the Creek country, and with the help of troops from Mississippi
completely defeated the Indians at the battle of the Horseshoe, or
Tohopeka (March 27, 1814).
[Illustration: OPERATIONS IN THE EAST, 1814]
=308. Outlook for 1814.=—The year 1814 opened gloomily in spite of
Harrison’s and Perry’s victories. There was still much improvement
needed in the methods of raising troops, the War Department was badly
managed, and the finances were in a wretched condition. Worst of all,
good leaders were lacking. Besides, the British navy was beginning to
ravage the Atlantic coast, and Napoleon’s power being on the wane, the
strength of the United Kingdom could be more fully employed against
America. Russia, however, had proffered her good services as a mediator,
and Gallatin and James A. Bayard were sent to St. Petersburg to join
John Quincy Adams, minister at that court, in securing this powerful
influence. The British government discouraged the Czar’s offers, but as
it had great European interests to settle, it was not so much inclined
to fight to a finish with the United States as it might otherwise have
been.
[Illustration: COMMODORE THOMAS MACDONOUGH.]
=309. The Canadian Campaign of 1814.=—Several incompetent generals
having been got out of the way for one cause or another, the command on
the Canadian frontier fell to the capable Brown. A mistake was made with
regard to the scene of operations, but when the fighting began near
Niagara Falls, Brown gave a good account of himself. At Chippewa and
Lundy’s Lane (July 5 and 25), leaders like Winfield Scott distinguished
themselves, and the American troops showed themselves the equals of
British regulars, and won honor, if no substantial military gains.
Commodore Thomas Macdonough[135] also repeated Perry’s exploit of
destroying a British flotilla—this time off Plattsburg on Lake
Champlain (September 11). The result of all this fighting was
little,—each side practically holding its ground,—but the Americans
gained prestige.
[Illustration: OPERATIONS AROUND WASHINGTON
IN 1814]
=310. Capture of Washington.=—Meanwhile British ships ravaged the
Atlantic coast, and by midsummer a large fleet under Admirals Cockburn
and Cochrane was collected in Chesapeake Bay. On board was General Ross
with several thousand troops. Washington, Virginia, and Maryland were
evidently in danger and great efforts were made to meet the
invaders—unfortunately to little purpose, on account of the incapacity
of Secretary Armstrong. The British landed and began their march to
Washington, easily putting the undisciplined American militia to flight
at Bladensburg, Maryland (August 24). Our troops evacuated Washington,
and the British entered. They retaliated for the burning of York by
setting fire to the White House, the unfinished Capitol, and other
buildings. It was an act of vandalism that cannot be defended; but
fortunately the next city attacked repulsed the invaders courageously.
This was Baltimore, before which the British troops were driven back,
General Ross being slain, and from which the British fleet retired after
a vain bombardment of Fort McHenry (September 12 and 13). The song of
“The Star Spangled Banner,” by Francis S. Key, commemorates this
American victory.
END OF THE WAR.
[Illustration: ANDREW JACKSON.]
=311. The Battle of New Orleans.=—It soon became apparent that the
attacks on Washington and Baltimore had been of secondary importance,
and that the real object of the British fleet was to capture New
Orleans, and snatch the newly acquired Louisiana from the United States.
James Monroe, who had succeeded Armstrong as Secretary of War, at once
called upon the ablest soldier in the Southwest, Andrew Jackson.[136]
The latter gathered his forces, and although he first tried an
expedition into Florida against the British and Indians, he set to work
at the defenses of New Orleans in good season. The large British fleet
effected a landing safely, and by December 23 the troops were only a few
miles from the city. The main battle occurred on January 8, 1815, and
the backwoodsmen behind their works destroyed the flower of the British
army who had the hardihood to make a front attack. Sir Edward Pakenham,
the British commander, was killed, after having been for days
outgeneralled by Jackson; and at least two thousand veterans, many of
whom had followed Wellington in the Spanish Peninsula, lay dead or
wounded on the field. The American loss, on the other hand, was almost
incredibly slight—about twenty men all told.
[Illustration: SOUTHWESTERN OPERATIONS,
1813–1815]
=312. The Treaty of Ghent.=—If those had been the days of the
telegraph, the battle of New Orleans would not have been fought, and the
American people would have had no great land victory to salve the pride
that had been touched to the quick by the capture of Washington, Hull’s
surrender, and other disgraceful events of the war. On December 24,
1814, American and British commissioners had signed a treaty of peace at
Ghent. Adams, Gallatin, and Bayard, who were already abroad, had been
joined by Henry Clay and Jonathan Russell; and the five had defended
American interests very well. Gallatin was the most influential member
and succeeded in curbing the zeal of Clay and Adams, who wished to press
matters like the British right to navigate the Mississippi and the
fisheries question, in which the people of the West and of New England
took a great interest. Curiously enough, the treaty did not touch the
impressment abuse, or the right of searching vessels, for the sake of
which, in the main, the war had been waged. Still, after her naval
victories, America was not likely to suffer in the future from such
abuses. Each side restored the territory of the other that it occupied,
and both felt relieved that the anomalous war was over.
THE DISAFFECTION OF NEW ENGLAND.
=313. Political Events.=—Political events in Madison’s second
administration were naturally overshadowed by the war or else connected
with it. As we have seen, the finances were badly managed, nor were the
affairs of the War Department on a better footing. Congress was scarcely
more efficient, especially when its Speaker, Henry Clay, was absent with
the commissioners at Ghent. But the disaffection of the New England
Federalists was the most serious element in the political problem. With
the waning of their party and the assured success of the
Democratic-Republicans, they naturally grew more rancorous. They
coquetted with the British before and during the war, and they had
little or no sympathy with the idea that the United States was a nation.
In the debate in 1811 on the admission of Louisiana as a state, one of
their leaders, Josiah Quincy of Massachusetts, actually declared that
the passage of the bill would be a virtual dissolution of the Union, and
that it would be the duty of some of the states, “to prepare for a
separation amicably” if they could, “violently if they must.”
=314. Reasons for New England’s Attitude.=—This attitude seems at first
wholly indefensible, but we must remember both at this juncture and in
dealing later with the secession of the South, that the idea of national
unison was one of very slow growth, and that threats of secession or of
violent resistance to the Union had been heard already from Southern,
Western, and Middle states. States were still jealous of their prestige,
and the language of the Constitution lent itself to interpretations that
reduced the power of the nation to a minimum. Besides, New England had
suffered greatly from the enforced idleness of its shipping during the
Embargo and from the captures made by the British. Consequently, just as
men are always inclined to do, they held the national government
responsible for matters that often lay beyond its control. Their
pro-British sympathies, although certainly carried beyond the bounds of
decency, may be partly extenuated for these reasons. When they went
farther, and refused to put the state militia at the service of the
Union, they took a dangerous step, but one not entirely indefensible on
strict constructionist grounds. It was a sure precursor, however, of
more determined and less defensible opposition.
=315. The Hartford Convention.=—Success in state elections gave the
political solidarity that was needed, and the increasing pressure of
hostilities in the year 1814 gave the needed stimulus, for effective
opposition to the war on the part of New England. After speeches and
resolutions as strenuous as those that nerved Virginia and Kentucky to
their resistance of the Alien and Sedition laws, passed half a
generation before by the Federalists themselves, a call was issued by
Massachusetts for a convention of the New England States. This met at
Hartford, Connecticut, on December 15, 1814. After a few weeks of secret
debate its members issued a remarkable report. This document asserted
the doctrine of states’ rights in its most naked form, suggested
amendments to the Constitution of the United States looking to the
protection of the interests of minorities, and demanded for the states
the right to claim the customs duties collected within their own
borders. This last provision would have been of itself enough to destroy
the power of the Union, but fortunately there was no need even to
discuss it. The commissioners sent to Washington to propose it to
Congress found that peace had been declared and that their chief ground
of grievance had been removed. They had, therefore, nothing to do but to
hasten home in chagrin. The Federalist party did not survive their last
attack upon the general government, and for several years after 1815
there was practically only one party in the country. This fact is not
surprising when we remember that accession to power had rendered the
leading Republicans as desirous of maintaining a fairly strong
government as the moderate Federalists were.
CONSEQUENCES OF THE WAR.
=316. Some Results of the War.=—With the decline of Federalism came a
natural increase of national democratic spirit and a lessening of the
dependence on either Great Britain or France, which, as we have before
seen, had characterized the generation that grew up just after the
Revolution. This was a clear gain from the war. On the other hand, the
interests of the sections began more sharply to diverge. The North,
during the trouble with England, had taken to manufacturing, and now
began to demand a really protective tariff for its “infant industries.”
This policy, though encouraged by the West for the sake of certain
products like hemp, was soon seen to bear hard on the South. Previous
legislation on the subject (§ 266) had paved the way for an effective
tariff, and the influx of British goods brought into the country after
the close of the war showed that the newly developed industries,
especially that of cotton manufacture, which had increased greatly since
1810, would find it hard to subsist without support. So the tariff act
of 1816 was passed, in spite of the opposition of Daniel Webster, who
represented New England shipping interests, and of John Randolph, who
represented the agricultural South and the stricter forms of
Republicanism. The rate (about twenty-five per cent), placed on imported
cotton and woolen goods, was found practically prohibitive by Southern
planters, who needed coarse clothes for their slaves. Thus the
Southerners began to be alienated from the Democratic-Republican party,
although not a few of them helped to pass the act of 1816. Among these
was John C. Calhoun, whose leanings toward a strong government were
still pronounced.
=317. The National Bank and Internal Improvements.=—The year 1816 also
saw the passage of another financial measure destined to cause division
later. This was the reëstablishment of a national bank, Hamilton’s bank
(§ 266) having failed to secure a second charter in 1811. The financial
burdens of the war had fallen in consequence upon the state banks, which
had not been managed well. Hence the new bank scheme was favored even by
cautious Republicans like Madison. Its establishment for twenty years,
with a largely increased capital, enabled the country practically to
resume a specie basis in less than a year.[137] A fund of a million and
a half dollars was paid by it to the government for the privileges
granted by the charter, and the problem how to employ this sum to the
best advantage brought forward still another question involving
conflicting interests.
=318. The Question of Internal Improvements.=—At first the individual
states had attended to their internal needs and had spent considerable
sums, especially in improving their water-ways, but a great scheme for a
system of national canals had, before the war, attracted leading
Republicans. Now Calhoun proposed to use for a similar purpose the money
turned in by the bank. His bill passed Congress, but Madison vetoed it,
on the ground that although such improvements were desirable, a specific
amendment to the Constitution was needed if the general government was
to undertake them.
=319. The Succession of Monroe.=—This veto of Madison’s, which led the
people of New York, in default of national aid, to construct their own
Erie Canal, through which New York City was enabled soon to outstrip its
rivals,[138] was one of his last official acts and showed that he was
still faithful to the political creed of Jefferson. He was shortly after
(March 4, 1817) succeeded by his Secretary of State, James Monroe, who
had proved his claim to the succession by developing the nationalistic
ideas that had made Jefferson and Madison safe leaders in a very
critical period. Monroe had also rendered very efficient service as
temporary Secretary of War, and had endeared himself to the people of
every section.
* * * * *
REFERENCES.—GENERAL WORKS: same as for Chapter XIII.
SPECIAL WORKS: same in the main as for Chapter XV., with the
addition of: Henry Adams, _History of the United States_
(1800–1817, 9 vols.); D. C. Gilman, _James Monroe_ (“American
Statesmen”); W. G. Sumner, _Andrew Jackson_ (“American
Statesmen”); C. Schurz, _Henry Clay_ (2 vols. “American
Statesmen”); B. J. Lossing, _Field Book of the War of 1812_; C.
J. Ingersoll, _Historical Sketch of the Second War_; T.
Roosevelt, _Naval War of 1812_; J. Fenimore Cooper, _History of
the Navy of the United States_, chaps. xiii.–xlix.; E. S.
Maclay, _History of the United States Navy_, Vol. I., 305-577;
H. C. Adams, _Public Debts_, Part II., chap. i.; H. C. Lodge,
_George Cabot_, chaps. x.–xiii.
-----
[126] Born, 1782; died, 1850. Graduated at Yale, and early developed
remarkable powers; entered House of Representatives in 1811; was
Secretary of War during Monroe’s administrations; was Vice President,
1825–1832, when in consequence of radical differences with Jackson, he
resigned his position and entered the Senate, where his ability at once
made him a leader of the “States’ Rights” party; was Secretary of State
under Tyler in 1844–1845; reëntered the Senate in 1845, where he held
the leadership of the Southern Democrats till his death.
[127] This statement, put thus baldly, is probably an exaggeration, but
it is certain that strong pressure was brought to bear on Madison, and
that he finally yielded to the “War Hawks,” as the party opposed to
peace was styled.
[128] As in the later years of the Revolutionary War, it was fortunate
that British ships were so fully occupied on the other side of the
Atlantic.
[129] There were so few that there were not enough to go the round of
the captains. So the officers took turns in commanding, in order that
each might get a chance to distinguish himself.
[130] Born in Connecticut, 1773; died, 1843. Served in merchant marine
from 1784 to 1798, when he entered the navy; engaged in the Barbary War
in command of the _Argus_; commissioned captain in 1806; given command
of the _Constitution_ in 1807; won great distinction by capturing the
_Guerrière_ with a loss of fourteen killed and wounded, while the enemy
lost seventy-nine; commanded the Pacific and Mediterranean squadrons and
served on the naval board at Washington.
[131] See O. W. Holmes’s _Old Ironsides_.
[132] Her brave commander, Captain Lawrence, was killed. The contest was
practically a sea duel in answer to a challenge. The British were
greatly elated over their victory. Lawrence was born in 1781, at
Burlington, N. J. He was engaged in the Barbary War, having command of
the _Argus_, _Vixen_, and _Wasp_; while commanding the _Hornet_, in
1813, captured the British brig _Peacock_, with a loss of only one
killed and two wounded; while commanding the _Chesapeake_, was defeated
by the _Shannon_, in consequence of having a new and undisciplined crew;
was mortally wounded, and gave as his last injunction, “Don’t give up
the ship.”
[133] Born in Rhode Island, 1785; died, 1819. Entered the navy in 1799
as midshipman; was in the war against Tripoli, and later became a
careful student of gunnery; was appointed to command on Lake Erie, 1813;
showed extraordinary energy and skill in building a fleet and in
collecting and drilling his crews; got together nine rude vessels and
captured all six British vessels, in the battle of Lake Erie, September
10, 1813; coöperated in Battle of the Thames, and served in defense of
Baltimore.
[134] Several months previously the Americans had suffered a severe loss
at the river Raisin, seven hundred troops under General Winchester of
Tennessee having been overpowered and forced to surrender by Proctor and
his Indians, and a part of them afterward basely burned and scalped by
the savages. In consequence the name of Proctor was held in great
abhorrence.
[135] Born in Delaware, 1783; died, 1825. Served against Tripoli; gained
celebrated victory over British Commodore Downie at Plattsburg, 1814,
the British having 16 vessels and 92 guns, the Americans 14 vessels and
86 guns, the British losing 300 men besides prisoners, the Americans
200.
[136] Born on border of North and South Carolina, March 15, 1767; died
at the Hermitage, near Nashville, Tennessee, June 8, 1845. Scantily
educated; became a lawyer in Tennessee, 1788; rose in his profession and
in politics; elected congressman in 1796; senator, 1797–1798; judge in
Supreme Court of Tennessee, 1798–1804; defeated Indians at Tohopeka,
1814; won battle of New Orleans, 1815; put down Seminoles in Florida,
1818; governor of Florida, 1821; elected United States senator, 1823;
candidate for Presidency, 1824; President, 1829–1837; lived in
retirement at the Hermitage, 1837–1845.
[137] The bank was soon mismanaged and was with great difficulty set
straight. The numerous state banks continued to be badly managed also,
and the years 1817–1820 were a period of great financial stringency.
[138] In the time of the Revolutionary War and for some years later, New
York City was not larger than Boston or Newport.
CHAPTER XVII.
=THE ADMINISTRATIONS OF MONROE, 1817–1825.=
CHARACTER OF THE PERIOD.
=320. Monroe’s Counselors.=—Monroe[139] was fortunate not only in
having to preside over a united people, but in being able to secure good
advisers. For Secretary of State he chose John Quincy Adams, son of the
former President and a diplomatist of tried ability, who had done good
work for the country as Minister to Russia and commissioner at Ghent (§
312). The fact that the son of the great Federalist leader should be
serving in the Cabinet of a Republican President was a signal proof of
the utter demoralization of the old Federalist party. In the Treasury,
Monroe placed William H. Crawford of Georgia, an able though rather
intriguing man whose subsequent defeat for the Presidency and withdrawal
from national life caused regret to many people. Crawford was more of a
politician than a statesman, and his success showed that public leaders
were undergoing a change of type. The Cabinet was made preponderatingly
Southern by the appointment of Calhoun as Secretary of War and of
William Wirt as Attorney-General. Its strength, however, was not
decreased, for both made excellent officials, although Wirt was more an
advocate and literary man than a statesman.
[Illustration: JAMES MONROE.]
=321. The Era of Good Feeling.=—Monroe’s name is chiefly connected
to-day with matters of foreign policy, and his administrations have been
termed “The Era of Good Feeling,” because domestic affairs wore on the
whole so quiet an aspect. Yet, as we shall soon see, the debates on the
subject of slavery connected with the admission of Missouri as a state
showed that the country was in reality far from united; and the tariff
legislation of 1824 brought out the fact still more clearly in a few
years. Harmony was also far from the minds of the politicians, however
united politically the people might appear to be. Intrigues for the
succession to the Presidency occupied the leading statesmen, and in the
combinations formed by them a careful observer might have perceived the
beginnings of a division into two parties not radically dissimilar to
the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans of the preceding generation.
=322. The Character of Monroe as President.=—Monroe has generally been
regarded as the weakest of the early Presidents, although his popularity
was widespread. This view is plausible, but hardly just. He certainly
behaved with great dignity toward the intriguing politicians who were
aiming to succeed him; he showed discretion in adopting from his
advisers the foreign policy that bears his name; and he preserved a
strict impartiality and adherence to the cause of the Union in the
sectional disputes that disturbed his administrations. He was not a
commanding man, yet he deserves to be remembered as a statesman who
outgrew early rashness, and he was fully entitled to the confidence
given him by the masses. For his second term (1821–1825), indeed, he had
no opposition. But a solitary vote was cast against him, in order, as
the story goes, that Washington should be the only President unanimously
chosen.
DIPLOMATIC ACHIEVEMENTS.
=323. The Oregon Region.=—Two boundary disputes with Great Britain and
Spain early occupied the attention of Monroe and his advisers. The first
was mainly concerned with the so-called Oregon region beyond the
Rockies, drained by the Columbia River, which the United States claimed
through the discovery of this great stream by Captain Robert Gray in
1792, and through explorations made by Lewis and Clark (§ 287), whom
Jefferson had sent out soon after the purchase of Louisiana (1805). In
this region the British Hudson Bay Company had, however, established
trading posts, and Monroe found that the best thing he could do was to
agree upon the forty-ninth parallel as a northern boundary as far as the
Rockies and upon joint occupancy for ten years of the disputed territory
beyond.
=324. The Acquisition of Florida.=—Diplomacy with Spain was more
definitely successful. Ever since the purchase of Louisiana the United
States had claimed that it was entitled to the strip of land along the
Gulf known as West Florida; but Spain had refused to admit this, or to
sell the territory, in spite of persistent offers to purchase made by
Jefferson. In 1810 Madison took possession of the region by
proclamation, although it now seems certain that the nation had better
claims on Texas. His action, and the invasion of Florida by General
Andrew Jackson while he was in pursuit of Indians convinced Spain,
however, that she would do well to sell while she could the outlying
peninsula of East Florida. Accordingly, on February 22, 1819, Adams
negotiated a treaty by which the Floridas were ceded,[140] and the
western boundary of Louisiana was settled along the Sabine, Red, and
Arkansas rivers to the forty-second parallel, and then along that to the
Pacific. This treaty strengthened American claims to the Oregon region,
and also helped to settle various Indian and slave troubles connected
with East Florida, which had served as a place of refuge for runaway
negroes and other bad characters. So much disturbance had indeed been
caused by these marauders and by the Seminole Indians, that in 1818
General Andrew Jackson had had to invade Florida, and had actually taken
two towns and done other rather high-handed acts which nearly led to his
being court-martialed.[141] Spain for two years delayed ratifying the
treaty, but finally yielded to the inevitable.
=325. The Occasion of the Monroe Doctrine.=—A few years later relations
with Spain again became important. Revolutionary principles had spread
in the Spanish colonies to the south, and by 1822 Spain had lost all her
provinces on the mainland. But the so-called “Holy Alliance,” formed by
the principal sovereigns of continental Europe after the fall of
Napoleon, had for its chief object the repression of revolutionary
doctrines and outbreaks, and it seemed not unlikely that a concerted
effort might be made by Europe, not to restore her colonies to Spain,
but to distribute them among the great powers. This was naturally not to
the liking of a people who had themselves revolted, nor was Great
Britain anxious to allow the Alliance to gain too much headway. Besides,
Russia was endeavoring to establish a colony on the North Pacific, and
she and other powers might easily find pretexts to seize upon territory
nearer to the United States—perhaps upon California. Hence, while
overtures for a joint protest, made by the British statesman, George
Canning, to our Minister to England, Richard Rush, were declined, the
administration soon found it necessary to take a stand in the matter.
=326. The Monroe Doctrine.=—Accordingly, Monroe sent in a message to
Congress in December, 1823, in which he outlined the policy since known
as the “Monroe Doctrine.” This doctrine was none the less important from
the fact that it was addressed to Congress instead of to the European
powers. Its gist was contained in two assertions: first, that the
American continents were not henceforth to be considered as subjects for
future colonization by any European power; second, that efforts to
coerce the newly established governments would be regarded as proofs of
“an unfriendly disposition toward the United States.” These firm
utterances, for which Monroe was indebted chiefly to John Quincy Adams,
but also to the policy of Washington and other statesmen and to the
advice of Jefferson, put an end to all fear of European aggression and
rendered Russia reasonable with regard to Alaska. The policy thus
outlined has since been effectively maintained, and it may now be
regarded as beyond the reach of party action. In fact, it has been
extended so as to include more of a guardianship over other American
powers than was contemplated by Monroe. It is plain from John Quincy
Adams’s attitude in the matter of the Panama Congress (§ 337), that the
original “Doctrine” contemplated that each power should guard by its own
means against European aggressions.
SLAVERY COMES TO THE FRONT.
[Illustration: =Areas of Freedom and Slavery
as established by the Missouri Compromise of 1820=]
=327. The Slavery Question.=—Turning now to domestic matters, we find
that during Monroe’s two terms, Chief Justice Marshall delivered many of
his most celebrated opinions restraining the powers of the states in
favor of the general government. But there was one subject which not
even a Marshall could have handled effectively—this was slavery.
Slavery had occupied the attention of the first Congress, which had been
petitioned by anti-slavery societies to abate the evils of the system.
In 1793 an act for restoring slaves who had fled from one state to
another was passed. The slave trade had been prohibited in 1808, as soon
as the Constitution allowed, and a great effort had been made by the
American Colonization Society in 1816, to begin the work of exporting
the negroes to Africa; but the invention of the cotton gin, in 1793, had
rendered slavery too profitable to the far Southern states to make it
probable that they would peaceably consent to the abolishment of the
institution. On the other hand, the number of people who thought slavery
morally wrong had increased in the North and Northwest, and the way in
which new slaveholding and non-slaveholding states had been admitted
into the Union by pairs, so as not to disturb the balance of power in
the Senate, showed that many Southerners were alive to the dangers of
the situation. Yet, after all, so great was the general desire for
internal harmony that most persons were startled when the debates
concerning the admission of Missouri revealed the fact that the
existence of slavery was a menace to the Union.
=328. The Missouri Controversy.=—The inevitable struggle between
slavery and freedom was precipitated by the endeavor to bring in
Arkansas as a territory and Missouri as a state. Both were to be carved
out of that part of the Louisiana Cession in which slavery had already
gained a footing. Northern members of Congress objected to the spread of
the institution into the vast territory still to be occupied, while
Southern members felt that any limitation of slavery was an infringement
on their property rights. If a man could carry his other chattels when
he removed to the new region, why, they asked, could he not carry those
human chattels known as slaves. Finally Arkansas was organized without
mention of slavery, but a stand was made on Missouri. James Tallmadge, a
New York representative, offered an amendment to the act admitting
Missouri, to the effect that further introduction of slaves into the
proposed state should be prohibited, and that the children of slaves
born after the state’s admission to the Union should be considered free
at the age of twenty-five. The Senate refusing to concur, the matter
went over.
=329. The First Missouri Compromise.=—The close of the year 1819 saw a
renewal of the contest in the new Congress, which assembled after the
matter had been much discussed in state legislatures and throughout the
country. Alabama was admitted to balance Illinois; then bills passed the
House admitting Maine[142] and Missouri, but with the anti-slavery
proviso made applicable to the latter. The Senate would admit Maine only
if Missouri were admitted as a slave state. The House refused to yield,
but finally a compromise was effected. A line was drawn across the
Louisiana Territory at 36° 30′, _i.e._ along the northern boundary of
Arkansas, and it was agreed that north of this line slavery should not
exist save in Missouri. This famous arrangement, which went into effect
in March, 1820, became known as the “Missouri Compromise” and was
effective until new territory was added to the Union as a result of the
Mexican War.
[Illustration: HENRY CLAY (1832).]
=330. The Second Missouri Compromise.=—Missouri was not, indeed,
admitted until 1821, on account of a provision in its Constitution
against allowing free colored men to enter its borders. This obstacle
was overcome by the address and dexterity of Henry Clay[143] who, as a
Virginian by birth and a Kentuckian by residence, was in every way
admirably suited to act as mediator between the two sections. He did not
like slavery, and had been president of the Colonization Society; but he
understood how thoroughly in earnest the Southern men were to defend the
institution. He used all the tact and personal charm for which he was
conspicuous among his contemporaries, and succeeded in making the people
of Missouri agree not to deprive citizens of other states of their
rights.
[Illustration: JOHN RANDOLPH.]
=331. General View of the Compromises.=—The Second Compromise was
distinctly ambiguous and meant little; the First was a sacrifice of
principle which, however, was regarded as necessary at the time. Both
sides were in earnest, and the extreme adherents of each stood out to
the end for their respective principles. On the whole, the
responsibility for the settlement rested largely on the moderate
Southerners and on their Northern and Western sympathizers, who were
very influential in some states,—for example, in Illinois. Few men saw
with John Randolph[144] that the day of settlement was only postponed.
Whether it would have been best to fight the question out then and
there, will always be a mooted point. Compromise on matters of principle
is incapable of satisfying men’s consciences for long; but it is equally
true that principles cannot be uncompromisingly maintained with success
at all times and seasons. Fighting unyieldingly for them at the wrong
time may postpone their final triumph indefinitely. Hence it was,
perhaps, best that the forces of freedom were given time to grow strong
and that the Union was not hazarded at so early a juncture.
FACTIONAL POLITICS.
=332. Political Factions and the Tariff of 1824.=—The fight over
Missouri was not the only indication that the Era of Good Feeling was to
be of short duration. Politics throughout the country were becoming
personal in character and therefore more or less petty. The influence of
the Revolutionary statesmen was waning, in spite of the prestige of
survivors like John Adams and Jefferson. The right to vote no longer
depended in the main upon the possession of property, as had been the
case when the Union was formed, but was being extended to all male
citizens of the age of twenty-one. This extension of the franchise was
largely due to the example set by the new Western states, which were
naturally far more democratic than the older commonwealths. As a result,
political tricksters were fast controlling the vote of the masses.
Offices were being given for political services, and congressional
caucuses and state cliques were dictating nominations. The nominating
convention, with its opportunities for “wire-pulling” and its aptitude
for selecting compromise candidates, was also coming into vogue in state
politics, and political clubs, like the “Tammany Society” of New York,
were beginning their sinister work. Under these circumstances it is no
wonder that, as the tariff of 1816 was not sufficient for their
purposes, the manufacturers of the Middle states and New England should
have endeavored to obtain legislation of a more decidedly protective
character. Aided by the West, which believed with Clay in creating “a
home market” and thus adhering to a truly “American policy,” they
succeeded, in 1824, against the wishes of the South, in passing a tariff
act with higher duties, especially on wool, woolens, cotton goods, iron,
and hemp. They had nearly succeeded in 1820 in carrying their point.
Now, on the eve of an election, the politicians who were supporting the
various Presidential candidates were afraid to risk votes by opposing
such strong financial interests, and three sections[145] were in any
case stronger than one. But the passage of such an act under such
circumstances was sure to give trouble, for although in theory designed
for the good of the nation, protection really involved financial loss to
one section, the South, which, as a whole, did not yet realize the fact,
but was beginning to do so.
[Illustration: JOHN QUINCY ADAMS.]
=333. The Presidential Election of 1824.=—Meanwhile, the choice of
Monroe’s successor seemed more important than the tariff. Each of the
candidates was a Democratic-Republican, a fact which perhaps made their
struggle all the fiercer. John Quincy Adams,[146] as Secretary of State,
had precedents in his favor,—Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe having
served in that capacity,—and he had also the support of New England;
but his lack of magnetism counted greatly against him. Calhoun, who was
still strong in the North on account of his nationalistic views, which,
however, he was fast abandoning, soon contented himself with receiving
assurance of the Vice Presidency. Crawford, whose health was very poor
at the time, was nominated by the regular party caucus of congressmen;
but as caucus nominations had grown in disfavor, this fact hurt his
chances. Clay had the support of the West, and was popular elsewhere.
Andrew Jackson, then a senator, was popular on account of his military
record, represented the democratic masses more nearly than any other
candidate, and had astute political managers. At the election of 1824,
Jackson led with ninety-nine electoral votes; Adams had eighty-four;
Crawford, forty-one; and Clay, thirty-seven. The election thus went to
the House of Representatives, which had to choose from the three highest
names.
=334. Choice of John Quincy Adams.=—In February, 1825, the House,
voting by states, chose Adams, for whom, as the best fitted of the
candidates, Clay had used his influence. As Adams subsequently made Clay
Secretary of State, a corrupt bargain between them was charged, but upon
no real grounds. Some of Jackson’s friends claimed that, as he had
received most votes, the House should have respected the popular will
and chosen him; yet this was equivalent to maintaining that the
Constitution, which had left the House of Representatives full liberty
in the matter, had not been properly framed. But, although there was no
good reason for the discontent expressed, it remained clear that the Era
of Good Feeling was over, and that Adams would find little comfort in
the high office he had attained.[147]
* * * * *
REFERENCES.—GENERAL WORKS: same as for Chapter XIII.
SPECIAL WORKS: same as for Chapter XVI. (see also Chapter XV.),
with the addition of: H. C. Lodge, _Daniel Webster_ (“American
Statesmen”); H. Von Holst, _John C. Calhoun_ (“American
Statesmen”); J. T. Morse, _John Quincy Adams_ (“American
Statesmen”); T. H. Benton, _Thirty Years View_ (2 vols.). See
also the writings of Monroe and Clay, and of the three statesmen
named above, especially J. Q. Adams’s _Diary_, as well as A. S.
Bolles’s, _Financial History of the United States_; F. W.
Taussig’s, _Tariff History of the United States_.
-----
[139] Born, 1758; died, 1831. Left William and Mary College in 1776 to
enter the army; fought at Trenton, Brandywine, Germantown, and Monmouth;
member of the Virginia Assembly in 1782, and a chosen member of the
Continental Congress; opposed the ratification of the Constitution by
Virginia in 1788; United States senator, 1790–1794; envoy to France,
1794–1796; governor of Virginia, 1799–1802; went a second time as envoy
to France, 1802–1803; Minister to London, 1803–1807; Secretary of State,
1811–1817; President, 1817–1825.
[140] The United States in return agreed to assume claims against Spain
held by American citizens amounting to five million dollars.
[141] Among other things, he caused two British subjects, who had
stirred up the Indians, to be hanged, and he got into quite a heated
controversy with the governor of Georgia. As a matter of fact, he
grossly exceeded his instructions, and Calhoun was technically right
when he proposed the court-martial. Monroe and Adams, however, knew that
Jackson had acted in what he believed to be his country’s interest, and
they shielded him. It was many years before Jackson learned who it was
that had proposed to court-martial him. When he found out, a breach with
Calhoun followed, which had, as we shall see, important political
results.
[142] Maine up to this time had been a district of Massachusetts.
[143] Born in Virginia, 1777; died, 1852. Moved to Kentucky, 1797; in
rapid succession was member of the Kentucky legislature, the House of
Representatives, and the United States Senate; Speaker of the House,
1811–1814; leader of the war party against Great Britain, and champion
of internal improvements; one of the envoys to Ghent, 1814; Speaker of
House, 1815–1821, also from 1823–1825; ardently advocated the tariff of
1824; Secretary of State, 1825—1829; senator from Kentucky, 1832–1842
and 1849–1852: candidate for President, 1824, 1831, and 1844; was the
great representative of the National Whig party of his time, and the
most powerful advocate of what was called the American System of
Protection.
[144] Born in Virginia, 1773; died, 1833. Studied at Princeton and
Columbia; entered House of Representatives in 1799; soon became a leader
among the Democratic-Republicans; was a champion of strict construction
of the Constitution, and won great distinction as the most satirical
speaker ever heard in Congress; was United States senator, 1825 to 1827,
when he invented the term, “doughface,” as applied to Northern
sympathizers with slavery; was sent as Minister to Russia by Jackson in
1830, but he disliked the climate and returned; reëlected to Congress,
1832. Emancipated his slaves by his will.
[145] New England was not yet unanimous in supporting protection, but
soon became so.
[146] Born in 1767; died, 1848. Taken to the University of Leyden early
in life, and at fourteen was secretary to the Minister to Russia;
graduated at Harvard, 1788; admitted to the bar, 1791; Minister to
Holland, 1794–1797; to Prussia, 1797–1801; United States senator,
1803–1808; Minister to Russia, 1809–1814; Minister to England,
1814–1817; Secretary of State, 1817–1825; elected President by House of
Representatives in 1825; reëntered House of Representatives, 1831, where
he continued till his death, a model legislator in every department of
public business. His diary, twelve volumes of which have been published,
is a mine of valuable information.
[147] It should be noted that in 1824 Lafayette made a triumphal tour of
the country as the guest of the nation. The reception given him is said
to have made even the Presidential campaign seem of secondary interest.
[Illustration: UNITED STATES IN 1825–1830]
[Illustration: UNITED STATES IN 1825–1830]
PART IV.
SPREAD OF DEMOCRACY AND EXTENSION
OF TERRITORY, 1825–1850.
* * * * *
CHAPTER XVIII.
=THE ADMINISTRATION OF JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, 1825—1829.=
FAILURES OF THE ADMINISTRATION.
=335. Character of Adams’s Administration.=—Adams was a statesman of
great ability and experience and of high integrity, but he represented
ideas of strong government not pleasing to the masses. He seemed to be a
Federalist veneered with Democracy. He did not have the faculty of
winning and holding friends. He could not be easy in his manners, and,
on the other hand, his dignity lacked grace. Besides, his election had
been disputed, his opponents were factious, and events favored him
almost as little as they had done his father. The strongest man in his
Cabinet, Clay, was really a source of weakness to him, for Jackson’s
friends continued to pretend to believe in the corrupt bargain.[148]
Adams’s administration was, therefore, on the whole, a failure.
=336. Foreign Affairs.=—Even in foreign affairs, where, being a trained
diplomatist, he had been previously successful, things went against
Adams. He secured a number of good commercial treaties, but lost the
important trade with the British West Indian ports through the failure
to comply in time with certain demands of Great Britain. Perhaps if he
had used the tact afterward displayed by Jackson, he would have secured
the trade without trouble. But, as it was, the fault lay mainly with
Congress, which took delight in humiliating the President.
=337. The Panama Congress.=—Adams fared as badly or worse when he
indorsed the scheme of General Bolivar, the South American patriot hero,
for holding at Panama a convention, or congress, of all the American
republics. Both Adams and Clay, the latter of whom had long taken
interest in South American affairs, believed that through such a
congress the influence of the United States would be extended and the
Monroe Doctrine be more firmly established. But although commissioners
were finally sent to Panama, they arrived too late to participate in the
conference, owing to the protracted debates in Congress on the propriety
of sending them. Although Adams’s opponents would under any
circumstances have delighted to harass him, these debates were mainly
due to the fact that Hayti, a republic of revolted negro slaves, was to
be represented at Panama. Southern congressmen disliked the social and
political recognition involved, and feared that the subject of slavery
might come up for discussion. As a matter of course, Adams’s opponents
made him bear the brunt of the fiasco.
=338. Internal Improvements.=—In domestic affairs the President’s
policy was still more unsuccessful. In his tactless way he favored
internal improvements to an extent unwarranted at the time. He knew of
the general prejudice against the government’s undertaking what the
states preferred to do themselves, and he should have known also that
the vetoes of his two predecessors had carried great weight. Besides, it
was almost amusing to counsel the American people, as he did, to build
observatories, when they were more interested in finances, public and
private, than in astronomy. Some money had indeed been spent on
improvements, especially upon the Cumberland Road, a highway running
through Maryland, West Virginia, and Ohio, and designed to connect East
and West. More money was spent during Adams’s term; but much opposition
was aroused, particularly in the South, even Calhoun being now dubious
of the constitutionality of such expenditure of the public funds.
=339. Georgia and the Indians.=—Still more humiliating than anything
described yet was Adams’s failure to protect from the aggressions of the
governor and legislature of Georgia, the Creeks and Cherokees, who lived
in a half-civilized condition within the boundaries of that state. Both
tribes had treaty relations with the United States, and neither owed
allegiance to Georgia. Yet the state proceeded to survey the lands of
the Creeks under a treaty of 1825, before the general government had had
time to investigate the matter. When Adams interfered, feeling that the
Indians were being imposed upon, Governor Troup used imprudent language,
which he reiterated in 1827 under similar circumstances. On the latter
occasion he actually called out state militia to meet the United States
troops. This was pushing the doctrine of state sovereignty to a very
dangerous extreme. As the President got little support from Congress, he
had to brook the insult in spite of a splendid speech in his behalf by
Daniel Webster. A few years later, as we shall soon see, another state,
South Carolina, stood out against another President, Andrew Jackson,
with far less impunity, Jackson being a more commanding man than Adams,
and his opponents less determined. It must be remembered, too, that
although the rash conduct of Georgia’s legislature and governor deserves
partial censure, the people of the state were acting but naturally, when
they endeavored to supplant by white settlers the Indians within their
borders. An Indian state within a commonwealth was not to be tolerated,
and the United States had in 1802 promised to get the Indians away as
soon as possible.
THE TARIFF QUESTION.
=340. The Tariff of 1828.=—Thus far Adams’s conduct had been above
reproach, however much he had failed in carrying out his various
policies. It is less easy to defend his course in not vetoing the tariff
bill of 1828—known in history as the “Tariff of Abominations.” It is
natural that men who have once tasted the bounty of government should
desire more of it; hence we are not surprised at finding the
manufacturers of the country soon demanding more protection. The most
clamorous advocates of higher duties were the growers and manufacturers
of wool, since English woolens were again being sold in American
markets. A bill for the aid of the manufacturers of woolens was defeated
in 1827 only by the vote of Vice President Calhoun, who again showed the
growth of his anti-protection views. Then followed a convention of
protectionists at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, which advocated very high
duties (1827). The adherents of Jackson, whose candidacy was kept
shrewdly before the public throughout Adams’s term, now conceived a very
subtle plan for helping their hero and still further discrediting Adams.
They proposed to levy exorbitant duties on raw products,—a policy which
would secure the favor of the Western farmers and sheep-raisers, but
would outrage the New England manufacturers. The latter, it was thought,
would then join the Southerners in defeating the bill and would owe no
gratitude to Adams. Jackson would in consequence keep his Southern
votes, yet would also seem friendly to the West and to the
protectionists generally. The schemes of Jackson’s partisans to increase
his chances of election were unnecessary, since he was already a
sufficiently popular candidate. The bill actually passed laid high
duties which protected both growers of raw products[149] and
manufacturers. Although the gains of the manufacturers were thus
neutralized, they thought it best to take their chances under the
increased duties. Accordingly the congressmen who represented them voted
for the bill, and Adams signed it May 24, 1828. The South was greatly
outraged in consequence, although some of her own leaders had with
sinister purpose forced the rates up.
=341. South Carolina’s Discontent.=—South Carolina was especially
excited. Her feelings and ideas were well expressed in a document—the
celebrated “Exposition and Protest”—drawn up by Calhoun. In this
manifesto the Vice President, following the lead of his predecessor
Jefferson, pushed the doctrine of state protest, as outlined in the
Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, to the extreme of a separate state
veto and nullification of an obnoxious law (§ 279). He went farther than
Jefferson, however, his views being derived partly from his own
philosophical speculations, partly from the teachings of John Randolph
and of other Southern leaders. The consequences of the adoption of his
theory were plainly very dangerous, but matters stood still for a while,
since all parties were waiting to see what stand the new administration
to be inaugurated in 1829 would take with regard to the tariff.
=342. Election of 1828.=—As might have been foreseen, Adams was
defeated in the election of 1828. He had come nearer success than was
expected; for the votes of New York and Pennsylvania would have turned
the scale. But his opponents, with their scandalous stories, their
unnecessary congressional investigations, their general
unscrupulousness, had been too much for him. Clay had not been efficient
in directing the campaign; while Jackson had secured in his favor what
he had not had in the campaign of 1824,—the support of the skillful
group of New York politicians known as the “Albany Regency,” at the head
of which was the astute Martin Van Buren. Besides, Jackson’s views on
disputed questions were a mystery, so that he could be claimed by any
faction, while his sympathies and qualities were plainly democratic and
thus acceptable to the masses. On the other hand, Adams’s views were so
pronounced that he was sure to alienate votes, and his sympathies and
qualities were plainly aristocratic.[150] Finally, Jackson was a typical
Westerner, and the West then held the balance of power. It is no wonder,
therefore, that in the popular vote he distanced his rival.
* * * * *
REFERENCES.—GENERAL WORKS: W. Macdonald, _Select Documents of
United States History, 1776–1781_; J. Schouler, _History of the
United States_ (6 vols.); J. Winsor, _The Narrative and Critical
History of America_ (8 vols.); G. Tucker, _The History of the
United States_ (4 vols., Winsor and Tucker extend to 1840); H.
Von Holst, _The Constitutional History of the United States_ (8
vols.); Bryant and Gay, _A Popular History of the United States_
(4 vols.); T. H. Benton, _Thirty Years’ View_ (2 vols.); E.
Ingle, _Southern Side Lights_; Woodrow Wilson, _Division and
Reunion_ (“Epochs of American History”).
SPECIAL WORKS: same as for Chapter XVII.
-----
[148] John Randolph, probably the most venomously personal debater
Congress has ever had among its members, gave immortality to the charge
against Adams and Clay by likening the pair to two unsavory characters
in Fielding’s novel, _Tom Jones_. He referred to the “coalition of
Blifil and Black George, a combination, unheard of until now, of the
Puritan and the blackleg.” The taunt against Clay expressed in the last
word was based upon that statesman’s rather loose habits, which were
only too characteristic of the public men of the period. The fact that
Randolph and Clay fought a bloodless duel over this matter, reminds us
of the extent to which manners have changed within three quarters of a
century.
[149] For example, the duty on hemp was raised from $35 to $60 per ton.
[150] In these respects he much resembles the Ex-President, his father,
who, curiously and appropriately enough, died within a few hours of his
old friend and rival, Jefferson, on the fiftieth anniversary of the day
they had helped to render famous, July 4, 1826.
CHAPTER XIX.
=THE JACKSONIAN EPOCH, 1829–1837.=
POLITICAL CONDITIONS.
=343. The Meaning of Jackson’s Election.=—Andrew Jackson was the first
man of plain birth and breeding to sit in the White House. Born on the
border between the two Carolinas, he had early made his way to Tennessee
and there had risen to leadership through his strength of character and
his possession of all the manly qualities most held in repute by the
pioneer settlers. The democratic voters gave him whatever political or
military offices he wanted, and were thoroughly satisfied with the
effective way he discharged his duties. When Indians or British
threatened the South or Southwest, he was the man to whom the general
government had to turn, and his constant success made him a popular hero
throughout the Union. Thus, in reputation as well as in character, he
became more than a mere Tennesseean; he became a representative
American. He was not a trained statesman, and his opinions on many
important subjects were little more than prejudices. But he was
thoroughly honest and fearless and precisely the sort of leader fitted
to enlist the sympathy and admiration of the democracy. It is true that
he could have done little without his shrewd political friends, and that
he was likely to be partly their tool. It is true, also, that with all
the virtues of the backwoodsmen, he had some of their vices, notably
that of vindictiveness. But when all allowances are made, he was a great
man, thoroughly representative of the new electorate.
=344. The New Democracy.=—The new type of politicians controlling the
country was but an index of a new electorate. In the East the downfall
of the Federalists and the constant extensions of the suffrage had
created a party of “the people,” which would have had little chance of
making its wishes law under the régime of Washington, or even of
Jefferson. But it hailed in Jackson a leader after its own heart. In the
West, where aristocracy was practically unknown, no other party had ever
existed, and the young communities had long chafed under the
conservative methods of the East, which advanced one Secretary of State
after another to the Presidential chair. In the South the planters still
controlled affairs, but they treated the democracy with consideration,
and directed, rather than thwarted, its energies. Of course, in
developing this new political force, the teachings of Jefferson and his
school had had much influence; but the growth and spread of population,
the increase of territory, the development of means of communication,
and the opening up of new industries had been more effective. Jefferson
had wanted to have the people recognized as the source of power, but he
wished to have educated men use the power thus obtained. He thought,
moreover, that tyranny would be averted if these picked men represented
localities, or states, which would be jealous of their rights, and not
the nation at large, which would not be thus jealous. The new democracy,
on the other hand, while suspicious of strong government, was national
in its sympathies, rather than local, as was soon proved by Jackson. The
lately formed states of the West, being all younger than the Union, many
of them creations by that Union out of national territory, had less
state pride than the older commonwealths which had formed the Union. The
new conditions of trade were, moreover, somewhat obliterating state
lines in the North and East by inducing travel and correspondence on the
part of business men. Thus the local democracy represented by Jefferson
was being more and more confined to the South, but it kept up an
alliance with the national and more radical democracy represented by
Jackson down to the Civil War. Manhood suffrage, dependence of office
holders upon the wishes of the electorate, and other principles of the
Jacksonian democracy have become the political heritage of Americans,
regardless of party.
=345. Changes among the People.=—The new democracy was strong and
honest, but very ignorant. It was controlled by clever politicians, who
used the machinery of caucus, primary election, and nominating
conventions, and also introduced the ideas of the supreme virtue of
party fealty, and of the propriety of distributing the spoils of office
to the victors in each successive election. In other words, men were
being taught to distrust their individual judgment and to trust that of
their party. These ideas were held in all honesty, and few persons had
time to consider whither they would lead. Few saw that party loyalty was
taking the place of patriotism, that desire for the gains of office was
supplanting the spirit of patriotic self-sacrifice. The country had
grown tremendously in area, in population, and in wealth. Steamers were
running in every direction, and railroads were soon to be built.
Religious and educational lethargy had been shaken, and new ideas were
in the air. National democracy, with its theories of the right of all to
aspire to office, and its businesslike way of rewarding its successful
supporters, was itself, therefore, a part of a great transformation of
three-fourths of the American people.
PROGRESS OF THE NATION.
=346. Growth of the Nation.=—It is difficult to realize the extent of
this transformation. In 1789 Spain hemmed us in to the South and West
and the British had not abandoned fortresses that belonged to us in the
Northwest. Just beyond the Alleghanies the Indians were still a menace.
Forty years later our domain stretched far beyond the Mississippi, Spain
had yielded Florida, and Great Britain respected our rights. The
Seminoles in Florida, and other tribes in the far West, were still to
give trouble, but everywhere the wigwam was retreating before the log
cabin. A generation before, the Atlantic seaboard had dominated the
country in population, education, and wealth. Now the West was, not
indeed the equal of the East, but a formidable rival. Since the War of
1812, the migration to Northwest and Southwest had been marvelous. The
people seemed determined to fill up their more than two million square
miles of territory. Emigrants from Europe had not begun to come over in
great numbers, but American families were large and always ready to move
to a favorable locality, especially from rugged New England to the
fertile West. Improved roads, canals, and steamboats facilitated the
movement of population, but even in the South, where roads were bad,
enterprising families moved by thousands from Virginia and the Carolinas
into Alabama and Mississippi, which with their rich lands invited the
cotton planter and his slaves. Under these circumstances it is no wonder
that by 1830 the population of the country had reached nearly thirteen
millions, and that eleven new states had been added to the old thirteen.
=347. Material and Moral Progress.=—Perhaps the greatest change that
had taken place in America was the increased mental and moral energy
displayed by its inhabitants. The people were still provincial, but they
were no longer sluggish. The War of 1812 had developed their national
spirit; their own growth in population, and their acquisitions of
territory, out of which wealth in all forms could be easily extracted,
had developed their desire to prosper. They were no longer content
slowly to grow moderately rich. They fostered manufactures and commerce
and agriculture. They became a nation of inventors, and, what was more
important, they developed a capacity for pure science which made the
name of America honored throughout the world. Out of their midst sprang
essayists and novelists and poets who interpreted their life to them.
There was a notable growth of the religious spirit; temperance and other
reforms were agitated; more attention was paid to education; public
charities of all kinds received popular support. Nor were minor things
overlooked. Men of all classes began to strive to provide household
comforts for their families. Travel was made more comfortable. Good
hotels began to replace bad inns. Urban life did not attract country
people as it does now, but the towns had grown and prospered. New York
was in 1830 a city of two hundred thousand inhabitants. Philadelphia was
not far behind. Cincinnati had grown from a mere village to a town of
nearly twenty-five thousand people. Throughout the North, East, and
West, therefore, the watchword was “Development.” Even in the South,
which was rendered conservative and sluggish by the presence of slavery,
there were not wanting proofs that many energetic men would like to
imitate their more fortunate brothers of other sections. Like the rest
of the country, the South hoped for great things from her future
railroads and canals, but her industrial future was still far in the
distance.
=348. Political Conditions.=—Although the East and North led the rest
of the country in manufacturing and commerce, and although the West was
developing agriculture to a great degree, political power had not passed
to them as completely as a casual observer might have perhaps expected.
The South might be conservative, but it had an immense source of wealth
in its cotton; and buying, as it did, many supplies from the North, it
was a customer not to be offended. Hence many Northern politicians
opposed Southern schemes less violently than they would otherwise have
done, and hence the South seemed to have disproportionate power at
Washington. Besides, Southern planters had more leisure to think of
politics than busier citizens elsewhere, and their emotional
temperaments naturally inclined them to political leadership. But they
were being more and more outnumbered every year in the House of
Representatives, and the Missouri Controversy had shown them how
increasingly difficult it would be to keep the Senate balanced between
free and slave states. In view of their perilous position, they
naturally became all the more domineering and haughty in their demands.
This, however, roused the temper of the other sections. Wealthy New
England had time and means to develop the philanthropic spirit, and an
anti-slavery movement was sure to follow. The Northwest, settled largely
by New Englanders, would take this movement up, although hampered by the
presence of Southern immigrants in Indiana and Illinois. It was
impossible either for the descendants of the Puritans or for the hardy
pioneers to tolerate long the domination of an aristocracy based on
slavery.
[Illustration: WILLIAM LLOYD GARRISON.]
=349. The New West.=—The Western man, especially, living in his log
cabin, pursuing the primitive unconventional life of a farmer, could not
sympathize with an aristocracy that did not work with its hands, and
must sympathize with slaves that did. The graces of Southern social life
counted for little with Puritan or pioneer, and when the fight was begun
the moral enthusiasm of the one, and the shrewd sense, plain morality,
and superb energy of the other, would insure the victory for freedom.
The election of Jackson, who, although partly a Southerner, was more a
Westerner, meant, therefore, not merely the triumph of a new democracy,
but that the center of political power had crossed the Alleghanies, and
that the control which the South had exercised over the Union from the
first was passing to stronger hands.
[Illustration: THEODORE PARKER.]
=350. Changes in New England.=—In New England, also, the spirit of
understanding which had long existed with the South on account partly of
trade connections, partly of the English homogeneity common to both
sections, was rapidly passing away. The old New England of farmers and
sailors was now becoming more and more a country of manufacturers and
artisans. The old Puritan leaven still fermented,—not as formerly,
within the churches, the power of which had conspicuously declined, but
in new forms of philanthropy, philosophy, and literature. New England
had always been a power in the intellectual life of the nation, but from
1830 to 1860 this power was vastly increased. From her midst came
abolitionists like Garrison[151] and others shortly to be mentioned. In
Webster she had the greatest of orators and of exponents of the national
idea. In Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882) she had a teacher of high
morality and a philosopher who, if vague, like his fellow-members of the
school known as Transcendental, possessed, nevertheless, an inspiring
personality. In the elder William Ellery Channing (1780–1842) and
Theodore Parker[152] she had clergymen whose influence was felt far
beyond their section. In Henry Wadsworth Longfellow (1807–1882) she had
the sweetest and most popular of native poets; and in John Greenleaf
Whittier (1807–1892), a sturdy poet-champion of human liberty. James
Russell Lowell (1819–1891), too, was a young son of Massachusetts who,
as poet and critic, was to do good work for the nation. All these great
men were, more or less, forces to be counted against the continued
dominance of the South in politics. With the exception of Webster they
were not politicians, but they were thinkers who taught others to think.
Against them the South, even with the poet and story writer, Edgar Allan
Poe (1809–1849), could set no such galaxy of genius, save in the sphere
of politics; and with the exception of Calhoun, the Southern statesmen
of the new generation were inferior to those of the old. Nor were the
Middle states, rich and populous though they were, capable of competing
with New England as a factor in the nation’s life. Able politicians and
editors were coming to the front, and there were some authors of great
power, such as James Fenimore Cooper (1789–1851) and Washington Irving
(1783–1859), but none capable of supplying such civic inspiration as
writers like Emerson and Whittier. William Cullen Bryant (1794–1878)
might be counted in this connection, for he did his main work in New
York, but he was New England born. In short, it may be fairly said that
New England represented for the generation before the Civil War the
progressive, moral sense of the nation in the great question of freedom
versus slavery; for that portion of the West which served the cause of
liberty was settled chiefly by New England people. Curiously enough, the
greatest imaginative genius that New England produced, Nathaniel
Hawthorne (1804–1864), the romancer, took little interest in the burning
question of the day.
* * * * *
REFERENCES.—See Chapters XVII. and XVIII.
-----
[151] Born, 1805; died, 1879. Writer on Newburyport _Herald_, 1818–1826;
edited various emancipation papers, 1826–1831; editor of the great
agitation organ in behalf of emancipation, the _Liberator_, 1831–1860;
formed the American Anti-slavery Society and became its president in
1832; perhaps had greater influence than any other man in behalf of
emancipation.
[152] Born, 1810; died, 1860. Was pastor of Unitarian Church at West
Roxbury from 1837 to 1845; was an ardent advocate of emancipation; was
very prominent as an orator and pamphleteer; founded a church in Boston
for the advocacy of new and more radical phases of the Unitarian
movement.
CHAPTER XX.
=JACKSON’S FIRST ADMINISTRATION, 1829–1833.=
A POPULAR AUTOCRAT.
=351. The Spoils System.=—Jackson’s inauguration was a signal for
crowds of his active supporters to hasten to Washington for their
rewards. At the reception at the White House they displayed the rudeness
of a mob, and furnished a sharp contrast with the stately levees held by
Washington in New York. But worse things were to follow. Through a
Tenure of Office Act, due to Crawford (1820), many positions fell vacant
every four years. These vacancies enabled the President’s advisers
partly to satisfy the demands made upon him, but the politicians also
induced him to use his power of removal. In a few months over five times
as many changes were made in the civil service as had been made by all
Jackson’s predecessors. As a matter of course these wholesale removals
from office brought many incompetent men into positions of trust, but it
is quite clear that Jackson did not realize what he was doing. He
thought he was rewarding faithful friends instead of inflicting a
disgrace and an incalculable injury upon his country. He was a
kind-hearted man, but some of the official changes that he made on the
advice of his political managers could scarcely have been more cruel if
he had been really merciless.
[Illustration: MARTIN VAN BUREN.]
=352. Jackson’s Cabinet.=—Jackson’s Cabinet was chosen upon the basis
of friendship or service and was mediocre in character. Van Buren,[153]
who was made Secretary of State, had ability, it is true, and showed it
conspicuously in the way he humored Jackson in order to secure the
Presidential succession. Two Secretaries were friends of Calhoun, the
Vice President, who had thus far supported Jackson. Within three years,
however, the Cabinet was, with one exception, reconstituted. This very
unusual and autocratic procedure of Jackson’s was owing partly to the
alienation from Calhoun which followed Jackson’s discovery that the
South Carolinian had wished to have him punished for his high-handed
conduct in Florida (§ 324, note 2), and partly to the unwillingness of
the wives of the other Secretaries to call upon the wife of the
Secretary of War. This change in the personnel of the Cabinet but
slightly affected the character of the administration, since Jackson
rarely consulted his constitutional advisers, but preferred to take the
advice of a small group of friends known as the “Kitchen Cabinet.” These
men, chief among whom were William B. Lewis, an old Tennessee neighbor,
and Amos Kendall, later Postmaster-General, acted as “coaches” to the
old warrior. But the daring and energy needed for carrying out certain
of his policies were furnished by himself.
=353. Jackson’s Autocratic Reign.=—Jackson, in spite of his theories
about the duty of an executive to do the people’s will, was too much
accustomed to command to be able to play the part of a constitutional
President with any grace. When he had made up his mind to do a thing
there was no stopping him. Of all our Presidents he, the most typically
democratic, with the exception of Andrew Johnson, was the most typical
autocrat. Opponents called him “King Andrew” and his two administrations
are often spoken of as the “Reign of Andrew Jackson.” Yet to his credit
be it said, that when he was not persuaded to act spitefully, he always
acted fairly and for what he believed to be the interests of the nation.
He bullied Mexico, but he would not be bullied by South Carolina. He
insulted Chief Justice Marshall, was unforgiving to Calhoun, but was
loyal to Van Buren. He was stern when his resolution to act was kindled;
yet at times he was remarkably gentle. Almost the only time his will was
successfully crossed was when the women of Washington refused to receive
Secretary Eaton’s wife. But in describing him thus we are evidently
dealing with a real man, not with a mere personification of the nation’s
dignity. The history of Jackson’s administrations is the biography of
Jackson himself—a fact which shows us that republican governments are
sometimes as much affected by personal influences as monarchies are. The
parallel between his career and that of a typical autocratic ruler is
drawn still closer when we remember that an attempt was made to
assassinate him. But this parallel must not be pushed too far. No man
ever more truly wished to serve the people that elected him than Andrew
Jackson.
[Illustration: DANIEL WEBSTER.]
=354. Jackson as an Administrator.=—Jackson’s administrations form a
turning point in our history and are important from almost every point
of view. Only their leading features can be treated here, but it may be
well to say that whenever he could,—as in the matter of internal
improvements,—Jackson played the part of a strict constructionist. When
it was agreeable to him, he favored state sovereignty, as when he
refused to support Chief Justice Marshall and the Supreme Court in their
decisions against Georgia, which state continued to act toward the
Cherokees as badly as it had done toward the Creeks. Georgia officials
treated Marshall with contempt, and Jackson is reported to have said,
“John Marshall has made his law, now let him enforce it.” Such a divorce
between the executive and the judiciary, if long continued, would mean
anarchy; but it must be remembered that Jackson, an old backwoodsman,
would of course sympathize with the white men of Georgia.[154] But he
would tolerate no violation of national laws which he thought it right
to defend, and he considered the voice of the people sufficient
authority for some very loose constructions of the Constitution.
THE DEBATE OVER THE NATURE OF THE CONSTITUTION.
[Illustration: THOMAS H. BENTON.]
[Illustration: ROBERT Y. HAYNE.]
=355. The Webster-Hayne Debate.=—Probably the most striking event of
Jackson’s first administration is the great debate of 1830 between
Webster[155] and Hayne. It grew out of some resolutions of Senator Foote
of Connecticut with regard to the rapid sales of public lands. The
cheapness of land drew population westward, and this raised the price of
labor in the older states; hence the interest of New England seemed to
lie in opposing the policy of granting portions of the public domain to
newcomers on very easy terms. The resolutions were hotly opposed by
Senator Thomas H. Benton[156] of Missouri, a leading supporter of
Jackson. Benton and all Westerners naturally thought the prevailing
policy wise because it brought men and money to the new commonwealths.
Senator Robert Y. Hayne[157] of South Carolina came to the help of the
Western men, since to most Southerners New England was now obnoxious on
account of the Tariff of Abominations (§ 340), and since the West, being
comparatively unsettled, might, they thought, possibly be won to
slavery’s side. Webster replied to Hayne, and the latter returned to the
attack, but on a different line. He discussed the nature of the general
government and gave warning that if the South were not relieved of
tariff burdens, the remedy of a state veto would have to be resorted to.
In other words, he advanced Calhoun’s doctrine of nullification, which,
as we have seen, was an extension of the principles enunciated by
Virginia and Kentucky in 1798, and by the Hartford Convention in 1814
(§§ 279 and 315). Webster replied in his most famous speech, and as an
orator certainly got the better of his opponent, although Hayne’s
defense of his own position was masterly. Even Calhoun himself, who, as
he was serving his second term as Vice President, could not join in the
debate, would hardly have presented his own views more clearly. Whether
Webster eclipsed Hayne as a political reasoner, is a point on which the
North and the South have never been in perfect agreement. Webster denied
Hayne’s postulate that the Union rested on a compact, and affirmed that
the Constitution had established a general government with powers
sufficient to enforce its rights even against the component states.
[Illustration: DANIEL WEBSTER’S CARRIAGE.]
=356. The Theoretical and the Historical View.=—Few will now deny that
Webster was right as a theoretical publicist, for a constitution which
admitted the right of secession or of nullification would have framed a
farcical government. But whether he was right from the point of view of
the constitutional lawyer or of the historical annalist is quite a
different matter. There were nationalists from the beginning, but it
seems probable that most men in 1789 believed that the Constitution was
a compact between the states. By 1830 the North, and much of the West,
had been nationalized and had more or less forgotten or abandoned the
compact theory. But the South, less changed, adhered to it, especially
as on it a minority party could base a constitutional resistance to an
obnoxious policy like the tariff. Hence it seems fair to conclude that
Webster was right as a publicist, partly unsound as a lawyer and
annalist; but that the future was with him, the past with Hayne. That
the past was with Hayne is partly at least confirmed by the general
historical fact that minority parties, needing all the support they can
get, make a careful study of precedents and have every interest in not
making mistakes in their procedure. Parties of progress, on the other
hand, are rarely careful about their reasoning from precedents. It is to
be noted further that much of the political strength the Southerners
still possessed lay in the fact that they were on the defensive and
could obstruct legislation by strictly construing the Constitution.
THE TARIFF AND NULLIFICATION.
=357. Jackson and Calhoun.=—Shortly after the debate it looked as if
South Carolina at least would put Calhoun’s theory in operation. The
tariff of 1828 had been reformed in 1830 and in 1832, but the protective
idea was still dominant, and against this idea the Southerners were
firmly set. They wished to resist in some way, but they soon found that
they could not count on Jackson to help them as he had helped Georgia.
That old warrior had answered their overtures, when attending a banquet
given on Jefferson’s birthday, at which disunion sentiments were openly
expressed, by giving, as his contribution to the entertainment, the
toast, “Our Federal Union: it must be preserved.” They could count on
Calhoun, however, with more certainty than ever, for his break with
Jackson took place about this time; and, so far as logical exposition
goes, no cause has ever had more remarkable support than Calhoun gave
the nullifiers. Jackson, however, received a stronger support. He was
reëlected in 1832 by a very large majority and believed that the people
meant him to go ahead and preserve the Union, as well as to carry out
other important policies.
=358. Nullification.=—Meanwhile those South Carolinians who thought as
Calhoun did, in spite of considerable opposition from their
fellow-citizens, caused a State Convention to be assembled in November,
1832. This body declared the tariff acts of 1828 and 1832 null and void
so far as South Carolina was concerned, and prohibited payment of duties
under them after February 1, 1833. Jackson replied by a strong
proclamation, which urged the necessity of every true patriot’s
supporting the laws and officers of the Union. Unfortunately many good
South Carolinians thought that a patriot ought to support the state
first, and the Union afterward. Jackson, however, did not rely on a mere
proclamation. He dispatched soldiers and vessels to Charleston, and
asked Congress to pass a bill enlarging his powers so that he might
legally crush the incipient revolution. Congress in reply passed what is
known as the Force Bill, March 1, 1833. No force was needed, however.
The other Southern states did not stand by South Carolina, for although
most of them believed in the right of secession as a last resort, they
had little sympathy with nullification. They did not see how a state
could remain in the Union, and yet not obey the latter’s laws. The
nullifiers, under their leaders,—Hayne, who was now Governor of South
Carolina, and Calhoun, who had taken Hayne’s place in the Senate,—had
hoped for concession rather than war, and, pending the action of
Congress, suspended the nullification ordinance. The administration,
too, while determined to assert itself, had no great interest in the
protective system, the cause of the quarrel. At this juncture Clay again
played the part of a compromiser, and a tariff act, providing for a
gradual return in ten years to the mild duties of 1816, was made law,
March 2, 1833, one day after the Force Bill was passed and a day before
the obnoxious tariff of 1832 was to have gone into effect. On their
side, the South Carolinians held another convention, and repealed their
first nullifying ordinance, but nullified the Force Bill. Thus it was
practically a drawn battle—neither side abandoning its principles, but
both making concessions in a not altogether brave and creditable way. As
was to be expected, both parties claimed a victory. In South Carolina
Calhoun’s influence grew steadily stronger, and the militia of the state
seems to have been kept up with the distinct idea that it might be
available in another crisis with the general government. On the other
hand, Jackson had maintained the dignity of the Union, and the tariff
compromisers, following the Missouri compromisers, had succeeded in
putting off the day of reckoning until the Free states were strong
enough to crush slavery and still retain the Southern states in the
Union.
* * * * *
REFERENCES.—GENERAL WORKS: see Chapter XVIII.
SPECIAL WORKS: same as for Chapter XVII., with the addition of:
George T. Curtis, _Daniel Webster_; T. Roosevelt, _Thomas H.
Benton_ (“American Statesmen”); E. M. Shepard, _Martin Van
Buren_ (“American Statesmen”); A. C. McLaughlin, _Lewis Cass_
(“American Statesmen”); W. G. Sumner, _Andrew Jackson_
(“American Statesmen”); J. Parton, _Andrew Jackson_; W. P.
Trent, _Calhoun_, in _Southern Statesmen of the Old Régime_; C.
W. Loring, _Nullification_, _Secession_, etc.; D. F. Houston,
_Study of Nullification in South Carolina_ (“Harvard Historical
Studies”).
-----
[153] Born, 1782; died, 1862. Early rose to eminence in New York as a
lawyer and politician; United States senator, 1821–1828; governor,
1828–1829; Secretary of State under Jackson, 1829–1831; Vice President
with Jackson, 1833–1837; elected President, 1836; was overwhelmingly
defeated by Harrison in 1840; opposed the annexation of Texas in 1844;
received a majority of votes in Democratic Convention in 1844, but was
beaten by Polk under the two thirds rule; was Free Soil candidate for
President in 1848, and drew enough electoral votes from Cass to elect
Taylor.
[154] The Indian problem was partly solved during Jackson’s
administrations by the transfer of some of the tribes to Indian
Territory.
[155] Born in New Hampshire, 1782; died, 1852. Was educated at Phillips
Exeter Academy, and at Dartmouth College, graduating in 1801; admitted
to the bar at Boscawen, New Hampshire, in 1805; member of Congress,
1813–1817; moved to Boston and in 1818 rose to the front rank of lawyers
by his labors in the “Dartmouth College Case”; congressman, 1823–1827;
became widely known as orator by his orations at Plymouth, 1820, and
Bunker Hill, 1825, and his eulogy on Adams and Jefferson, 1826; entered
the Senate in 1827, and at once took high rank as a leader; favored the
protective tariff of 1828; won the highest distinction as “Expounder of
the Constitution” in debate with Hayne in 1830; Secretary of State,
1841; negotiated the Ashburton Treaty, 1842; resigned in 1843; reëntered
the Senate, 1845; gave feeble support to Taylor in 1848; alienated many
old friends by his 7th of March speech in 1850, in which he supported
Clay’s Compromises and took a conservative position on the question of
slavery; Secretary of State, 1850–1852.
[156] Born in North Carolina, 1782; died, 1858. Early migrated to
Tennessee; was colonel in the War of 1812; went to Missouri and became a
journalist in 1813; was United States senator from Missouri, 1821–1851;
was during this whole period deemed second in influence only to the
great trio Calhoun, Clay, and Webster; was a stanch advocate of
favorable land laws, of post-roads, of the development of the West, and
of conservatism in finance; strenuously supported Jackson and opposed
Calhoun; published valuable _Thirty Years View_, and _Abridgment of
Debates of Congress_.
[157] Born in South Carolina, 1791; died, 1839. Served in War of 1812;
member of the South Carolina Legislature, 1814–1818; attorney-general of
South Carolina, 1818–1822; elected to United States Senate, 1823;
opposed the protective system, denying its constitutionality; was
chairman of the nullifying convention of 1832; governor of South
Carolina, 1832–1834, when the state prepared to enforce its ideas of
nullification,—a movement which was prevented by Clay’s compromise
tariff.
CHAPTER XXI.
=JACKSON’S SECOND ADMINISTRATION, 1833–1837.=
THE ABOLITIONISTS.
=359. Anti-slavery Agitation.=—The tariff was not destined to remain
the chief grievance of the Southerners. They were soon far more
concerned with the growing agitation against slavery which was being
waged by determined men and women in the North. At the head of these
abolitionists, as they were styled, stood William Lloyd Garrison, who in
1831 established his anti-slavery paper, _The Liberator_, in Boston. Up
to this time many leading Southerners, including Washington and
Jefferson, had deplored the existence of slavery without seeing how to
get rid of it. Now, feeling outraged by the attacks made upon their
section, and fearing other slave insurrections like one incited by Nat
Turner in Virginia in 1831, they began to defend their institution as a
property right secured to them by law, and a profitable one in view of
the increased demand for cotton. Efforts for emancipation, such as those
made by representatives of the mountain districts of Virginia, in a
convention held in that state in 1829–1830, were abandoned. A
pro-slavery literature was produced, which treated slavery not as an
evil to be abated, but as a benefit to be spread. Stricter penal laws
were enacted with regard to the blacks, and the abolitionists were
denounced and threatened. The latter received at first similar treatment
in the North, where they were frequently mobbed. They continued to make
proselytes, however, and by 1836 had put the nation in a turmoil, as a
result of their petitions to Congress for the abolition of slavery in
the District of Columbia.
[Illustration: WENDELL PHILLIPS.]
=360. Abolitionist Petitions to Congress.=—The Southerners, alarmed at
the thought of the bad effects upon their interests that debate on these
petitions might have, secured the passage of resolutions tabling them.
But they found it hard to silence such an advocate as John Quincy Adams,
who had not disdained to serve his country in the House of
Representatives after having held the highest office open to a citizen.
Adams was not an abolitionist, but he did believe in the right of all
citizens to petition Congress, and until his death, in 1848, he
championed the cause of liberty in the most eloquent way. Soon, too, the
Southerners had the difficult task of disposing of the abolitionist
pamphlets sent through the mails. As a result of their efforts to
suppress freedom of speech and kindred rights, the cause they were
opposing gained in strength. It had its martyr in E. P. Lovejoy,
murdered in Alton, Illinois, in 1837, and its fiery orator in Wendell
Phillips[158] of Boston. It had the future with it also, but this only
the more far-sighted of the Southerners could see. The mass of them saw
only that an institution bequeathed to them by their fathers and, as
they believed, essential to their comfort and prosperity, was being
assailed by men who, as a rule, had had little close contact with it. In
consequence, they naturally made the best resistance they could. They
would have been more than human if they had not resisted, but it must be
confessed that their speeches and actions were often so extreme in
character as to defeat their ends. On the other hand, the abolitionists
were partly responsible, in their turn, for the extreme stand taken by
the Southerners, for they were very intemperate in their strictures.
Because they abhorred slavery, they thought it logical to abhor
slaveholders and the Constitution of the United States, which permitted
slavery. They were opposed to all efforts to settle the slavery question
by political action. They upheld every kind of reform, no matter how
extreme, and were continually at loggerheads among themselves. In other
words, they were impractical, and their methods in the early years of
the agitation were abhorrent to the average American citizen.
Nevertheless, they aroused the public conscience on the subject of
slavery, and, as leaders of a crusade, their most influential members,
men and women, have perhaps never been surpassed.
FINANCIAL DISTURBANCES.
=361. Jackson and the Bank.=—Meanwhile Jackson, though on the whole a
Southern sympathizer, had a battle of his own to fight that interested
him far more than the slavery contest. He had an agriculturist’s
suspicion of capitalists, and in particular saw in the Bank of the
United States a greedy monopoly worked in the interests of his political
enemies.[159] Accordingly he early declared war against that
institution, which was at that time in good condition. Henry Clay, his
chief rival, took up the issue, and in 1832 had a bill passed for
rechartering the corporation. Jackson at once vetoed it, and the country
sustained him in the campaign of 1832, in which Henry Clay, as candidate
of the National Republicans,[160] and William Wirt as candidate of the
short-lived party known as the Anti-Masons,[161] were ignominiously
defeated.
=362. Removal of the Deposits.=—Encouraged by the popular support he
had received, and believing firmly, and rightly, it would seem, that the
bank was a dangerous monopoly, Jackson now resolved to deal it a
crushing blow. He secured, after some trouble, a coöperating Secretary
of the Treasury in Roger B. Taney of Maryland, and through him had an
order given for the withdrawal of the deposits of public money in the
bank and its branches.[162] This move might under other circumstances
have been a wise one, but it was made in an impolitic manner; and by
crippling the bank at a period when the nation was carried away by a
craze for speculation, it probably helped to pave the way for the great
financial panic of 1837. It also brought upon Jackson a vote of censure
by the Senate, which he answered in a vigorous protest, and which his
friends later, under the lead of Benton, by a rather farcical procedure
succeeded in expunging from the _Senate Journal_.
=363. Censure of Jackson’s Action.=—Few actions of an American
President have been more harshly criticised than that of Jackson toward
the Bank of the United States, but it cost him little of his popularity
with the masses, because they, like himself, were suspicious of
corporate wealth. The wealthy classes, however, denounced him freely,
and with some reason. The changes necessitated in his Cabinet in order
that his wishes might be carried out suited rather a self-willed
sovereign like Louis XIV. than the constitutional executive of a
republic. The vindictiveness with which he pursued his policy was
appropriate to a small, rather than a great, man. Besides, the whole
matter was one for financiers to manage, and Jackson knew more of
fighting than he did of finance. Nor was popular acquiescence in his
policy a sure indication of its wisdom. On the other hand, the president
of the bank, Nicholas Biddle, of Philadelphia, acted with indiscretion
and injured his own cause. Clay also was premature in forcing the issue
and had a partisan purpose in doing it. The bank had years before been
grossly mismanaged (§ 317, note) and might be so again; and when its
existence was threatened, it used money in politics. Moreover, after its
charter expired, its career under the laws of Pennsylvania was
discreditable. Taking all these facts into consideration, we are perhaps
justified in concluding that Jackson’s methods of procedure deserve
great censure in spite of his integrity, but that what he actually did
was not nearly so detrimental to the interests of the country as some
persons have considered it.
=364. Banks and Speculation.=—But the end was not yet. The funds
removed from the Bank of the United States were deposited in state
banks, controlled by Democrats, and afterwards known as “Jackson’s
Pets.” This governmental favor caused the numbers of such banks to
increase, and thus stimulated the universal desire to indulge in
financial speculation. The public revenues meanwhile increased through
speculation in public lands and through larger imports, and as the
national debt had been paid off shortly before, it was hard to decide
what to do with the accumulated funds. An outlet for this surplus was
found in non-interest-bearing loans to the states in proportion to their
representation in Congress. This distribution of the surplus—a favorite
project of Clay’s and destined later to complicate the financial
situation still more seriously—increased the tendency toward
extravagant internal improvements, and thus fed the fever for
speculation which, as we have just said, both supported and was
supported by a loose system of banking under state control.
=365. Wild-cat Banks.=—The “Wild-cat Banks,” as the banks established
under this system were called, were especially numerous in the South and
West, and their paper notes were of such varying values that the public
suffered great inconvenience.[163] Journals were published for the
special purpose of reporting from day to day the value of the various
issues and for the purpose of pointing out how traders could avoid being
deceived by the numerous counterfeits. There was a legitimate demand for
an increase of the circulating medium, and the government had tried to
meet this by enlarging the output of gold and silver coins and by
arranging for notes to be issued by the deposit banks on a specie
reserve of one-third of their circulation. But these measures were not
sufficient. The states chartered banks recklessly, and the banks issued
their notes in wild profusion.
=366. The “Specie Circular.”=—Jackson became alarmed, since the notes
of even the specie-paying banks received by the Treasury for the
purchase of public lands were declining in value. He therefore issued
his famous “Specie Circular,” which announced, against the advice of the
Cabinet, that thenceforth only gold and silver would be received in
payment for public lands. This order naturally affected the banks in the
West disastrously, forced back a mass of notes upon the East, and
induced a general want of confidence, which was all the greater on
account of the previous speculative want of caution.
=367. Election of Van Buren.=—Jackson, like Jefferson, however, was
fortunate enough to lay down his office in time to leave his successor
to meet the impending storm. That successor was Martin Van Buren, who by
the irony of fate had helped his chief to secure two of his greatest
successes. These were the opening of the ports of the British West
Indies to American ships, and the acknowledgment by France of the
justice of the French spoliation claims, which were based on
depredations committed on American commerce during the Napoleonic
régime.[164] Still, Van Buren partly deserved his fate, for he had been
subservient to Jackson and had succeeded him on the distinct pledge that
he would follow in his footsteps. He was the first real politician to
reach the White House, but he had statesmanly qualities also. If he had
not bound himself to Jackson so closely that he was often forced to act
against his own judgment, he would probably rank among the greatest
Presidents. But adherence to Jackson’s policy—for example, in the
bullying attitude assumed toward Mexico on account of Texas—undoubtedly
hurt his career and perhaps his conscience. Still, Jackson had stood by
him after the Senate had unjustifiably failed to confirm his appointment
to the English mission; and, first as Vice President, afterward as
President, he had great cause to bless “Old Hickory’s” friendship.
* * * * *
REFERENCES.—GENERAL WORKS: see Chapter XVIII.
SPECIAL WORKS: same as for Chapter XX., except the two books
mentioned last. See also lives of leading
abolitionists,—Birney, Wendell Phillips, etc., especially the
biography of William Lloyd Garrison, written by his children,
and A. H. Stephens, _War Between the States_; Jefferson Davis,
_The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government_.
-----
[158] Born in Boston, 1811; died, 1884. Graduated at Harvard 1831;
became a lawyer, but from 1837 gave his chief energies to the abolition
movement; was the most eloquent and effective advocate of the cause
until the outbreak of the war; ardent advocate of temperance reform and
of woman suffrage; sided with the Greenback party.
[159] The former Adams men and the adherents of Clay, who shortly after
this time took the name of the patriotic party in the Revolution and
called themselves “Whigs.”
[160] Before taking the name “Whig,” the party that favored protection,
internal improvements, and liberal construction of the Constitution
generally, took part of the name of the Democratic-Republican party that
was in power from Jefferson to Jackson, and called themselves National
Republicans. The Jackson men, on the other hand, took the first half of
the name, which was distinctly appropriate to them. The Democratic party
thus formed has been in existence ever since, with considerable changes,
however. The Whigs, as will be seen, are represented to-day by the
Republican party.
[161] This party was formed against the Free Masons, chiefly in
consequence of the report, not confirmed, of the killing in 1826 of a
man named William Morgan, who had exposed certain secrets of the order.
[162] By law the Secretary had to give the order, and Jackson compelled
the resignation of Mr. Duane, who would not give it.
[163] Sometimes men would start a bank in a small town, fail there, and
then move to another town not far off and play the same trick. A
contemporaneous invention, the telegraph, was destined to do much for
the detection and apprehension of such rogues.
[164] Jackson’s vigorous policy toward France almost brought on a war
with that country.
CHAPTER XXII.
=THE ADMINISTRATIONS OF VAN BUREN AND OF HARRISON AND TYLER,
1837–1845.=
A PERIOD OF CONFUSION.
=368. New Parties.=—Martin Van Buren won the election of 1836 as a
Democrat, for Jackson’s party, as we have seen, had dropped the word
“Republican” from their name (§ 361, note 1). His opponent had been
William Henry Harrison of Indiana, a man long prominent in his section
(§§ 299, 302, 305). Harrison was the nominee of the Whigs, but the real
leaders of the latter party were Clay and Webster. The chief bond of
union binding the two leaders and their followers together was their
desire for a liberal construction of the Constitution and for a strong
central government. The Whigs were soon destined to develop strength in
every section, even in the South.
=369. The Independent Treasury.=—Van Buren and the Democrats were
destined soon to lose the strength they began with. The panic of 1837
greatly injured business, and then, as they have so often since done,
men blamed the central government for a state of things for which it was
only partly responsible. Banks failed in every direction and prices went
up enormously, flour and corn more than doubling in cost. The President
called an extra session of Congress to consider the situation, but had
little to propose besides insisting on the policy of the “Specie
Circular” and on divorcing the government from the banks. The latter
policy, known as the Independent Treasury system or Sub-Treasury, was
finally carried through in 1840. With a slight intermission, it has been
the policy of the nation ever since. Its main features are the receipt
and disbursement of government funds at vaults built in a few of the
chief cities.
=370. Van Buren’s Failure.=—The administration’s policy did little to
mend matters, and the people rightly or wrongly attributed most of the
financial troubles of the time to Jackson’s meddling with the banks.
They accordingly listened to the Whigs, who believed in a national bank
in particular and in discrediting the Democrats in general. To make
matters worse for Van Buren, the spoils system began to show its seamy
side, and he was accused of all its evils, unjustly, on the whole. He
was also charged with living in luxury while the poor were starving, and
in the midst of the panic was almost menaced by a mob in the White House
grounds. Furthermore, he alienated many persons by not siding with the
Canadian revolutionists of 1837, and by not encouraging the annexation
of Texas, which had revolted from Mexico in 1836. Even the Seminole
War,[165] continued for several years against the Indians of Florida,
was charged against him; and, in 1840, although he had on the whole
governed well, he was overwhelmingly defeated by General Harrison in a
campaign conducted on sensational lines.
[Illustration: WILLIAM HENRY HARRISON.]
=371. Campaign of 1840.=—Although Harrison was a Whig, the candidate
for Vice President who was associated with him, John Tyler of Virginia,
was chosen chiefly because he had opposed Jackson. He was really a
Jeffersonian Democrat, not a Whig. Principles were little in demand, the
voters being satisfied with spectacular demonstrations. In their
torchlight processions they carried around large, log cabins with men in
front drinking cider—visible insignia of the frontiersmen, to which
class Harrison was supposed to belong. They also shouted their campaign
refrain of “Tippecanoe and Tyler too” (§ 299), and they held monster
meetings in the open air. No campaign in American history has been more
marked by noisy, unreasoning enthusiasm than this.
THE EMBARRASSMENTS OF THE WHIGS.
=372. Tyler’s Position.=—General Harrison[166] was an old man, and
proved unable to bear the strain of his campaign, the pressure of office
seekers, and the ceremonies attending his inauguration. He died exactly
one month after taking office, and left his party in great confusion.
Vice President John Tyler, his successor, did not believe in the Whig
policy of loose construction, and was a Democrat in all except a few
particulars. He soon showed his colors by vetoing Clay’s bill for a
national bank, and then vetoing a second bill framed on suggestions of
his own. He was accused of bad faith, but was doubtless only in a false
position and anxious to assert a policy of his own that might put him at
the head of a party. His vetoes, however, made the Whigs his deadly
enemies and caused all his Cabinet to resign except Webster. The latter,
as Secretary of State, remained to settle with the British Minister,
Lord Ashburton, in the treaty that bears the latter’s name (1842), the
disputed northeastern boundary and certain points connected with the
suppression of the African slave trade.[167]
[Illustration: JOHN TYLER.]
=373. The Lesson of Tyler’s Career.=—John Tyler[168] was the first Vice
President to reach the White House through the death of his superior.
His behavior in the higher office should have taught the people of the
United States a lesson as to the necessity of choosing highly qualified
candidates for the Vice Presidential office. The career of Andrew
Johnson proves that they had not learned this lesson in 1864. The old
system by which the candidate receiving the second highest number of
electoral votes became Vice President had its drawbacks, but it at least
gave the country such Vice Presidents as John Adams and Jefferson. Under
the new system the office has been too often given to a candidate
possessing political influence or to a good man so old as to be likely
to die before the expiration of his term. It follows that Tyler is not
so much to blame for his mistakes as the people who put him where he was
sure to go astray. He was an honest and amiable man, who by no means
lacked capacity. He helped Webster in the Ashburton Treaty. He behaved
with discretion during what is known as “Dorr’s Rebellion” in Rhode
Island[169] (1841–1842). But, on the whole, Tyler was lacking in
discretion and was unable to take the lead in public matters. He did not
believe in a national bank and was perhaps right in not doing so; but if
he had been wise, he would have said so plainly and thus prevented the
Whigs passing bills that he was sure to veto. He vetoed other measures
besides the bank bills and perhaps again was in the right; but the main
result of his actions was to earn for him the distrust both of the Whigs
and of the Democrats. His attempt to form a party of his own was a
complete failure.
TEXAS AND OREGON.
[Illustration: GENERAL SAMUEL HOUSTON.]
=374. The Texas Question.=—The congressional election at the middle of
Tyler’s term, while adverse to the Whigs, did not help him. The second
half of his administration was therefore even more wanting in harmony
and effectiveness than the first. The chief question put forward was the
admission of Texas, which the President, as a Southern man and a
sympathizer with slavery, naturally favored. Although Mexico had not
recognized her independence, Texas had now been a republic ever since
General Samuel Houston[170] had defeated the Mexican leader, Santa Anna,
at San Jacinto on April 21, 1836. The leading Texans were Americans,
however, and desired annexation, but this would mean not only war with
Mexico, but also a huge increase of territory for slavery. Accordingly
Northern men shrank from allowing the annexation of the sparsely
populated region. Anti-slavery sentiments were growing, and such able
men as Joshua R. Giddings of Ohio were championing them in Congress. But
the Southerners were alert also, especially Calhoun, who became Tyler’s
Secretary of State toward the end of his term. Calhoun feared that
England was anxious to secure Texas; besides, he felt that slavery must
spread or be crushed out. It was not hard to induce Tyler to join in
negotiations with the Texans, and in April, 1844, a treaty of
annexation, secretly prepared, was announced. It was defeated in the
Senate by a large vote, but was taken up as the chief issue of the next
campaign.
=375. The Campaign of 1844.=—The Whigs put up Clay, and the Democrats
chose James K. Polk[171] of Tennessee, since Van Buren would not
advocate annexation. Polk, although he had been previously Speaker of
the House, was not very well known and had aspired only to the Vice
Presidency. He was therefore really the first “dark horse” to receive a
presidential nomination. Clay, on the other hand, was a veteran
statesman, the natural nominee of his party. But Clay unfortunately
wrote letters that made his position on the Texas question ambiguous; he
therefore lost the support of many anti-slavery men, who, as the
“Liberty Party,” put up a candidate of their own. Polk was accordingly
elected over a competitor much his superior. But before the newly
elected President took his seat, Tyler had secured the annexation of
Texas by the passage of a joint resolution through Congress.[172]
=376. The Oregon Question.=—Along with the Texas question the Democrats
had made the question of the occupation of Oregon a cardinal issue in
their campaign. Their success led them to claim that the United States
must have all the territory lying south of 54° 40′, “or fight.” This
demand was in every sense a rash one, and might easily have brought on
war with Great Britain, but it fortunately led to no evil results. In
1846 a treaty with Great Britain fixed the American northern line at the
49° parallel, and only Mexico was left to contend against.
* * * * *
REFERENCES.—GENERAL WORKS: same as for Chapter XVIII.
SPECIAL WORKS: same, in the main, as for Chapters XX. and XXI.,
with the addition of: J. T. Curtis, _James Buchanan_; L. G.
Tyler, _Letters and Times of the Tylers_; H. A. Wise, _Seven
Decades of the Union_; B. Wise, _The Life of Henry A. Wise of
Virginia_; H. H. Bancroft, _Oregon_ (“Pacific States,” Vols.
XXIV.–XXV.); William Barrows, _Oregon_ (“American
Commonwealths”); A. M. Williams, _Sam Houston_; H. Yoakum,
_History of Texas_.
-----
[165] This war, which originated in the attempt of the general
government to transfer the Florida Indians beyond the Mississippi River,
lasted seven years (1835–1842), and cost many lives and millions of
dollars. It was easy to disperse the savages in open fight, but when
they took to the swamps, soldiers were almost useless, and the best
generals tried their skill in vain. Finally, after much damage had been
done by the banditti, so that immigration into Florida was greatly
checked, the policy of giving lands to settlers who would carry arms to
defend themselves was tried successfully. The leading spirit of the
Seminoles was Osceola, an able warrior, who was finally captured while
he was holding a conference under a flag of truce. It was asserted that
he did not respect his own engagements, and that this was the only way
to take him, but one does not like to dwell upon the occurrence. Shortly
before, an Indian war, known as the Black Hawk War, from the name of the
chief of the Sac and Fox tribes who conducted it, had been brought to a
conclusion after a considerable amount of fighting. This war, like that
with the Seminoles, was due to the efforts of the government to remove
across the Mississippi the tribes lingering in Illinois and Wisconsin.
Some of the Indians went peaceably, but Black Hawk, who had previously
come under the influence of Tecumseh, induced many warriors to resist.
Finally, in the summer of 1832, the regular troops of the United States
defeated them on the Wisconsin and the Bad Axe rivers, and Black Hawk
and his two sons, with a few warriors, were taken to Fortress Monroe and
there confined for a short period.
[166] Born in Virginia, 1773; died, 1841. Graduated at Hampden Sidney
College; fought under Wayne, 1794; secretary of Northwest Territory in
1798; governor of Indiana Territory in 1800; won victory of Tippecanoe
in 1811; was major general in the War of 1812, and extended his
reputation by defeating Proctor and Tecumseh at the battle of the
Thames; congressman, 1816–1819; United States senator, 1825–1828;
Minister to the United States of Colombia, 1828–1829; defeated by Van
Buren for Presidency in 1836; elected in 1840.
[167] A. P. Upshur of Virginia succeeded Webster as Secretary of State,
but was killed, along with several other prominent men, by the bursting
of a gun on the _Princeton_ in 1844.
[168] Born in Virginia, 1790; died, 1862. Graduated at William and Mary
College, 1806; congressman, 1816–1821; governor of Virginia, 1825–1827;
United States senator, 1827–1836; opposed the Democrats on several
points, and thus won a place on the Whig ticket with Harrison in 1840;
after Harrison’s death, called an extra session of Congress, and at once
showed that he was still in general accord with the Democrats, who had
voted against him; was nominated for President in 1844 by a small body
of adherents, but did not run against Polk; retired in 1845; was
president of the Peace Convention in 1861.
[169] A clash that almost led to civil war came between the advocates of
a new constitution, who tried to make Thomas W. Dorr governor, and the
supporters of the old illiberal instrument which greatly restricted the
franchise. Dorr was arrested and sentenced to imprisonment for life in
1844, but was released three years later.
[170] Born, 1793; died, 1863. Fought bravely in the Creek War,
1813–1814; congressman from Tennessee, 1823–1827; governor of Tennessee,
1827–1829; migrated to Texas, and was president of Constitutional
Convention, 1833; as commander in chief secured the independence of
Texas; President of Texas, 1836–1838, and 1841–1844; after securing the
annexation of Texas to the United States, represented the state in
Congress from 1845 to 1859; elected governor in 1859; resigned in 1861,
refusing to espouse the Confederate cause.
[171] Born in North Carolina, 1795; died, 1849. Graduated at University
of North Carolina; migrated to Tennessee; congressman, 1825—1829;
Speaker of the House, 1835–1839; Governor of Tennessee, 1839–1841; was
elected President over Clay, 1844; favored the Mexican War; settled the
Oregon controversy; approved the “Walker Tariff,” and vetoed the river
and harbor bills of 1846 and 1847.
[172] Tyler and Calhoun had at first thought that the passage of a
treaty which would require a two-thirds vote of the Senate, was the
proper method of annexation. On the failure of this treaty they took up
a suggestion made during the congressional debates and pressed the
passage of a joint resolution, which required only a majority of both
houses. Such a change was especially curious on the part of strict
constructionists.
[Illustration: =Territory claimed by Texas
when admitted into the Union,
1845=]
CHAPTER XXIII.
=THE ADMINISTRATION OF POLK, 1845–1849.=
THE OPENING OF THE MEXICAN WAR.
=377. The Issues Involved.=—As a Mexican state, Texas had extended on
the south and west to the river Nueces; but her inhabitants and the
United States insisted on holding to boundaries based on the Louisiana
Purchase and on claiming the “country between the Nueces and the Rio
Grande.” The Mexicans resisted this claim; and when Polk ordered General
Taylor to cross the Nueces, and later to advance to the Rio Grande, they
attacked and defeated a small body of the American troops (April 24,
1846). Polk at once sent a message to Congress, in which he declared
that war existed, “through the act of Mexico herself.” This statement
was, on the whole, unwarranted, although a technical defense was easily
made for it. It was really a case of a strong nation’s bullying a weak
one; and, as we have seen (§ 353), the bullying had begun under Jackson
and had been steadily carried on. But Congress, and a considerable
portion of the people, especially in the South, accepted Polk’s
proposition, and the war was effectively prosecuted. Its results were
probably beneficial, in the main, since the territory was sure to become
American some day; but its origin is not a pleasant topic for the
patriotic American to dwell upon. Nor is it by any means certain that
the Civil War was not in large part precipitated by that against Mexico.
The latter contest gave the South a taste for fighting that was not
altogether a warrant for the future calm of that section; and the
additional territory acquired by the Union opened a new and disastrous
phase of the slavery question (§§ 388, 411).
[Illustration: JAMES K. POLK.]
=378. Conduct of the Administration.=—Senator Benton was probably right
when he claimed, in his _Thirty Years’ View_, that there never was a
less warlike administration than that of Polk. Polk was thoroughly
upright and pious, but was scarcely broad-minded. He took his seat with
the intention of carrying out a programme the main feature of which was
the acquisition of California. This programme he carried out to the
letter, partly because it was a popular one, partly because he had
considerable administrative skill. Owing in the main to the discretion
of Great Britain, war was averted with that power (§ 376), and Polk
could point to a very valuable addition of territory in the extreme
Northwest, into which population was already pouring. Tyler had
forestalled him with regard to annexing Texas; but Polk could at least
see to it that Texas reached the Rio Grande, and that the United States
thus recovered territory which some persons believed to have been
imprudently abandoned by Monroe in his negotiations with Spain (§ 324).
Yet to extend the bounds of Texas and, what was more important, to
acquire Upper California, would necessitate a war with Mexico, and for
this Polk and his well-chosen Cabinet were prepared. They wanted only a
short war, however, and trusted to diplomacy and money to secure them
the territory that would give the United States a clear sweep to the
Pacific. Hence much of Polk’s warlike attitude was hollow. His main
purpose was to obtain money from Congress with which to buy territory,
and by diplomatic means to induce Mexico to sell. He actually restored
to his native land the exiled Mexican general, Santa Anna, hoping that
the latter would, in gratitude, make a speedy peace. But the sly
adventurer induced his countrymen to fight the harder; and although
California and New Mexico were taken by the Americans without a real
struggle, peace with Mexico, and her acquiescence in the results of the
war, could be obtained only after long and costly campaigns. Moreover,
these campaigns entailed a political result discouraging to Polk and the
Democrats.
=379. Ambitions of Scott and Taylor.=—The leading soldier in the United
States was General Winfield Scott, the hero of Lundy’s Lane (§ 309).
Military success in a republic generally brings civil honors; and Scott
was a Whig, with his eyes already on the Presidency. A Democratic
administration could not bring itself to give Scott a chance to
distinguish himself, and for some time he was detained at Washington;
but his subordinate, General Zachary Taylor,[173] who was at first given
command (§ 377), was also Whig in his sympathies. Such being the case,
various expedients were suggested; it was even intended to give Senator
Benton supreme command, he being a good Democrat and a colonel of the
War of 1812. But all schemes failed. Scott was finally sent to the
front, and Taylor (§ 389) captured the Whig nomination for the
Presidency (1848). Such are some of the intrigues that the historian
finds behind the Mexican War. It is little wonder that the
Whigs—including old statesmen like Webster, and new statesmen like
Abraham Lincoln of Illinois, who was serving his only term as
congressman—should have denounced the contest as wrong in itself and as
prosecuted in the interests of the slaveholders and land grabbers of the
country. It is little wonder, too, as we have seen, that the Mexican War
does not live in popular imagination as a heroic struggle (§ 377).
THE CONDUCT AND RESULTS OF THE WAR.
[Illustration: GENERAL ZACHARY TAYLOR.]
=380. Taylor’s Victories.=—Whatever we may think of the causes of the
Mexican War and of the conduct of the American authorities, there can be
but one opinion as to the valor with which officers and troops conducted
themselves after hostilities had begun. Taylor received notice from the
Mexican general, Arista, on April 24, 1846, that his occupation of the
northern branch of the Rio Grande meant war. On the same day the first
American blood was shed. It was avenged shortly; for, on May 8, Taylor
met about six thousand Mexicans at Palo Alto, and defeated them severely
with his own small force of about two thousand. The next day he won
another complete victory at Resaca de la Palma, and drove the enemy
across the Rio Grande. The news of these victories aroused the country
and made Taylor a popular hero. He was already much loved by his
soldiers, who gave him the nickname of “Rough and Ready,” because of his
carelessness of dress and other details and his thorough capability as a
commander.
=381. Taylor’s Advance toward Mexico.=—War was formally declared by the
United States on May 13, Congress authorizing the President to call out
fifty thousand volunteers and voting ten million dollars for expenses.
On May 18, Taylor occupied Matamoras, halting there until September. He
then advanced upon Monterey, other officers, military and naval, having
meanwhile been occupying New Mexico and Upper California. Monterey fell,
after a short siege, on September 24. But Mexico would not yield,
although Colonel Doniphan, after a long, hard march, had taken Chihuahua
and gained control of the important surrounding region, and although
victory had crowned every effort of the Americans.
=382. Capture of Vera Cruz.=—As a speedy peace was much desired by the
administration, it now seemed necessary to send General Scott[174] to
the front. It was determined that his forces should sail early in the
spring to Vera Cruz, and from that place begin a march to the City of
Mexico. He landed at Vera Cruz on March 9, 1847, and after a bombardment
took the town twenty days later.
=383. Battle of Buena Vista.=—Meanwhile Santa Anna, in full command
once more, hearing in January that Scott had taken ten thousand troops
from Taylor, and believing that Vera Cruz could hold out for some time,
determined to make a swift march northward and crush Taylor. It was a
daring and probably a good plan, but it failed. Taylor, then some
distance from Monterey, was not a whit daunted when, on February 20, he
discovered about twelve thousand Mexicans in front of his own five
thousand troops. He retired and took up a good position near Buena
Vista, refusing Santa Anna’s demand for surrender three days later, and
inflicting a severe defeat upon his enemy before the day closed
(February 23, 1847). The American loss was about eight hundred, the
Mexican over twice as many. The battle settled the fate of the territory
that America craved, and, moreover, determined who should be the next
President of the United States. Curiously enough, the future President
of the Confederate States, who was Taylor’s own son-in-law, also won
great distinction at Buena Vista. Jefferson Davis fought with
conspicuous bravery, showed much tactical ingenuity, and was severely
wounded in this remarkable battle.
[Illustration: GENERAL WINFIELD SCOTT.]
=384. Scott’s Great March.=—If Taylor’s career had been brilliant,
Scott’s was now to be more so. Unfortunately for the latter’s
Presidential aspirations, however, Taylor had already caught the
attention of the public. Besides, Scott, who was strict with regard to
discipline and fond of display,—qualities that earned him the nickname
of “Fuss and Feathers,”—was not the man to secure popularity. Before
his brilliant campaign was over, he had several unpleasant difficulties
with subordinate officers. But, as a general, he showed himself to be
fully Taylor’s equal, perhaps his superior. Leaving Vera Cruz, he
forced, on April 18, the mountain pass of Cerro Gordo, which had been
fortified. It was defended by fifteen thousand Mexicans under Santa
Anna, whose courage had not been lessened by his defeat at Buena Vista.
Here again the Mexican losses far exceeded the American. Three thousand
prisoners were captured, along with a great store of arms and artillery,
and three towns were taken. At one of these, Puebla, the army halted for
a rest of two months. At the beginning of August the march on the
capital was renewed, about eleven thousand men moving forward. By August
18, they were within ten miles of the city, where the enemy made a
determined stand. The next day and the day after saw three
battles,—Contreras, San Antonio, and Churubusco,—all fought with
splendid courage and great success against much larger forces of
Mexicans, who fought quite as desperately, but with less skill.
[Illustration: TERRITORY CEDED BY MEXICO,
1848 AND 1853]
=385. The Capture of Mexico.=—The Mexicans being dispersed, Scott might
have entered the capital, but Polk wished to render negotiations easy,
and an armistice was granted in order that terms of peace might be
discussed. The American envoy, N. P. Trist, was instructed to ask for
New Mexico, the Californias, and the region between the Nueces and the
Rio Grande; although he was authorized to drop the demand for Lower
California if necessary, and also to offer money for the other
territory. The Mexican commissioners would not agree to these proposals,
and in their turn offered less than Polk desired. So the armistice was
terminated. Then, on September 8, Scott won the brilliant victory of
Molino del Rey (“Mill of the King”). Five days later, the heights of
Chapultepec, as well as two of the city’s gates, were stormed with great
gallantry. On the next day (September 14, 1847) a triumphal entry was
made into the Mexican capital, in the defense of which so many gallant
men had perished.
=386. The Best Feature of the War.=—The best feature of the Mexican War
was not the splendid territorial booty obtained, nor the remarkable
leadership displayed by Scott, Taylor, and their subordinates, but the
superior morale of the American troops. As these were in the main
volunteers, the conduct of the war was all the more a credit to the
nation, especially to the Southern and Southwestern states, where the
struggle had been popular. These brave volunteers wiped out whatever
disgrace attached to the country from the shameful lack of efficiency
shown by the troops of 1812. The war was also important for the training
it furnished young officers who were destined to play important parts in
the Civil War. “Stonewall” Jackson, McClellan, Grant, Lee, and other
generals here first showed the stuff that was in them.
=387. Results of the War.=—The unequal contest was settled by the
treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (February 2, 1848). Mexico had to agree to
relinquish all her territory north of the Rio Grande and Gila rivers. In
compensation for Upper California and New Mexico, the United States
allowed her the sum of fifteen million dollars, and undertook to pay
some of its own citizens who had claims against Mexico. The territory
thus acquired soon threw the country into great political confusion; for
certain Northern politicians were determined to prevent, if possible,
any extension of slavery in the domain obtained by purchase, even though
it lay south of 36° 30′ (§ 329).
=388. The Wilmot Proviso.=—As early as 1846, Representative David A.
Wilmot of Pennsylvania had proposed an amendment to a bill pending,
stipulating that no money should be appropriated to purchase territory
unless slavery were prohibited therein; and though this amendment, known
as the Wilmot Proviso, had failed, the principle involved in it was made
the chief feature of the campaign of 1848.
=389. Election of 1848.=—In this struggle five parties were engaged.
Certain disaffected Democrats of New York, known as Barn-burners,[175] a
party known as the Free Soilers, and the old Liberty Party of the
abolitionists,—all being opposed to the extension of slavery,—finally
nominated Van Buren. The Democrats nominated Lewis Cass of Michigan, who
advocated what was afterward famous as Popular or Squatter
Sovereignty,—that is, the right of the people of each territory to
choose whether they would have slavery or not. The Whigs nominated
General Zachary Taylor of Louisiana, and placed on the ticket with him
Millard Fillmore of New York. Their principles were not pronounced; but
Taylor was a Southerner and carried a large part of his section with
him, while Van Buren’s vote lost New York to the Democrats. Thus Taylor
and Fillmore were elected; but the South soon regretted the fact, for
the new President showed himself friendly to the anti-slavery men by
urging the admission of California as a free state.
* * * * *
REFERENCES.—GENERAL WORKS: same as for Chapter XIX.
SPECIAL WORKS: same as for Chapters XXII. and XXIII., with the
addition of: H. Wilson, _History of the Rise and Fall of the
Slave Power in America_, Vol. II., chaps. ii.–iii.; H. H.
Bancroft, _Pacific States_, Vol. VIII.; Winfield Scott,
_Memoirs_; U. S. Grant, _Personal Memoirs_, Vol. I., chaps,
iii.–xiii.
-----
[173] Born in Virginia, 1784; died, 1850. Appointed first lieutenant in
the army, 1808; fought in the War of 1812, in the Black Hawk War, and in
the war against the Seminoles; was ordered to the disputed territory on
the outbreak of the Mexican War, where his numerous victories made him a
national hero; was nominated for President over such competitors as Clay
and Webster, in 1848, and was elected by a large majority; died before
the Compromise of 1850 was adopted.
[174] Born in Virginia, 1786; died, 1866. Graduated at William and Mary
College, and entered the army, 1808; distinguished himself in the War of
1812, in consequence of which he was promoted to be brigadier and brevet
major general in 1814; became commander in chief of the United States
Army in 1841; distinguished himself by the brilliancy of his victories
in the Mexican War; was defeated by Pierce for the Presidency in 1852;
retired from the army, October, 1861.
[175] An uncomplimentary name given them by their opponents on account
of their supposed revolutionary opinions on political matters.
[Illustration: UNITED STATES—ACQUISITION OF TERRITORY]
PART V.
THE EVE OF THE CIVIL WAR, 1850–1861.
* * * * *
CHAPTER XXIV.
=THE ADMINISTRATION OF TAYLOR AND FILLMORE, 1849–1853.=
THE QUESTION OF CALIFORNIA.
=390. General Conditions.=—The period of controversy upon which we are
about to enter, was caused by the opposing interests and feelings of the
North and South on the subject of slavery. In the early history of the
country, the balance of power had been kept even by the alternate
admission of free and slave states. But the admission of Texas, and
still more, the results of the Mexican War, enlivened the hopes of the
South, while the Wilmot Proviso (§ 388) showed that the North was fully
aware of the great interests involved in the annexation of any new
territory capable of supporting slavery.
=391. Claims of the South.=—The people of the South, especially those
of South Carolina and Mississippi, which had perhaps become the most
influential states in political matters, asserted that the Fugitive
Slave Law, provided for by the Constitution and enacted into a statute
by Congress in 1793, had not been fairly carried out by the people of
the North. Southerners also charged the North with a growing tendency to
misrepresent, interfere with, and overthrow the institution of slavery,
which had been so carefully protected by the Constitution. They saw that
the North was growing much more rapidly than the South, and that the
time was not far away when the South might be outvoted in Congress, with
the result that, by a change of the Constitution, slavery would perhaps
be swept entirely away. The circulation of anti-slavery newspapers,
especially William Lloyd Garrison’s _Liberator_, continued to give great
offense to the South, and caused laws to be passed by the Southern
states prohibiting the distribution of such journals. The feelings thus
aroused were further excited by repeated efforts to secure the abolition
of slavery in the District of Columbia.
=392. Claims of the North.=—In the North, on the other hand, the
feeling was constantly growing that slavery was a moral wrong and a
national disgrace. While the people generally disavowed the right to
interfere with the institution where it already existed, they were
determined to resist legislation which would introduce it into any of
the new territories. They also claimed the right to the free expression
of their opinion and to the free publication of their views. It was
evident that only a definite occasion was needed to bring the sections
to a rupture which might precipitate a civil war. This occasion soon
came.
[Illustration: SUTTER’S MILL, CALIFORNIA, where gold was
first discovered.—From an old print.]
=393. California opens a New Question.=—In spite of the growing
estrangement of the sections, even the admission of Texas furnished no
definite ground for a positive clash. But the acquisition of California
introduced a new element into the political situation. Part of the
territory was south of the Missouri Compromise line of 36° 30′, and part
was north of it. The inhabitants demanded admission to the Union as a
state, and the question at once arose whether California should be
admitted as a free or a slave state. The Californians asked to be
admitted as a free and undivided state. Their demands were all the more
weighty because of the newly acquired importance of California in the
eyes of the world.
=394. California and the Discovery of Gold.=—California was a beautiful
region which offered many advantages besides that of rounding out
American territory on the Pacific. Its climate was delightful; its soil
fertile and capable of varied productions; its forests were valuable.
But a greater source of wealth was soon discovered. In January, 1848, an
American mechanic named Marshall, in the employ of a Swiss named Sutter,
found gold in a mill-race near the Sacramento River. The secret was not
kept, and soon every industry in the region was abandoned and thousands
of men were washing sand and digging gold out of the cliffs. The news
reached Washington late in 1848, and the next year saw a rush for
California, the like of which had never been known before. Some
adventurers made the long journey overland in caravans formed of
vehicles of every sort. Others tried the dangerous voyage around Cape
Horn. Others went by ship to Panama, crossed the Isthmus, and took their
chances of getting a vessel on the Pacific side. Arrived in California,
these “Forty-niners,” as they have since been called, plunged into the
wild, exciting life described so well by Bret Harte. Soon a population
large enough to demand statehood was assembled, and California began to
play its great part in national affairs.[176]
[Illustration: THE COMPROMISE OF 1850]
THE COMPROMISE OF 1850.
[Illustration: HENRY CLAY (1847).]
=395. Doctrines of Clay, Webster, and Calhoun.=—There was naturally
much excitement over the demand of the Californians, and declarations of
a purpose to secede were often heard in Southern conventions. It was for
the purpose of bringing the North and the South nearer together, and
preventing such a catastrophe, that Henry Clay, the author of the Second
Missouri Compromise, now came forward with the famous Compromise of
1850. Before introducing it, he had an interview with Daniel Webster and
secured the promise of the latter’s support. The debate on the subject
was one of the most memorable in the history of Congress. Clay, in one
of the greatest of his speeches, described the dangers of the situation
and pointed out that national disaster could be averted only by a
reasonable yielding on both sides. Calhoun, nearing his grave, and too
feeble even to read his speech, was brought into the Senate in a chair
to hear his speech read by a colleague. Reiterating his doctrine of the
constitutional right of secession, he maintained that a continuance of
the present conditions was impossible. But the greatest interest was
concentrated upon Webster. He was universally regarded as the foremost
statesman in the North. Though he had often deplored the existence of
slavery, and always opposed its extension, his views on the matter of
the Compromise now presented were not generally known, and the
declaration of his position was awaited with intense anxiety. His speech
on Clay’s measure, since commonly referred to as the “Seventh of March
Speech,” cast the great weight of his powerful influence in favor of the
Compromise. His act was much criticised in the North, and he was freely
accused of seeking favor with the Southerners in order to secure their
help in the approaching Presidential election, when he expected to be a
candidate. But Webster had always been a stanch advocate of the Union,
and there was nothing in his present course that was inconsistent with
the positions he had uniformly held. The feeling against him, however,
became, in many quarters of the North, intensely bitter.
[Illustration: WILLIAM H. SEWARD.
[By courtesy of G. P. Putnam’s Sons.]]
=396. Presidential Policy changed by Death of Taylor.=—Before the final
passage of the Compromise measures, President Taylor died, July 9, 1850,
and was succeeded by the Vice President, Millard Fillmore. Taylor,
although a Southerner, had been very largely influenced by William H.
Seward,[177] a senator from New York, who had led with great ability the
opposition to the Compromise. Taylor did not have a strong Cabinet, and
was untrained as a statesman, but he showed, in his short
administration, great common sense and firmness, and, had he lived,
might have prevailed on Congress to adopt a policy toward California
less tortuous than that involved in Clay’s Compromise. Fillmore,[178]
who succeeded to the Presidency, although a good man, was not a strong
one, and had not been on friendly terms with his fellow New Yorker,
Seward. In making up his Cabinet, he made Webster Secretary of State in
place of Clayton, of Delaware, and leaned upon the former for advice.
The policy of the administration was thus so completely changed that the
weight of its influence was at once thrown in favor of the adoption and
rigid enforcement of the Compromise legislation.
[Illustration: MILLARD FILLMORE.]
=397. The Compromise of 1850.=—The resolutions introduced by Clay were
much amended in the course of their consideration, but in final form, as
adopted in September, 1850, they covered the following provisions:—
1. California was to be admitted as a free state.
2. New Mexico and Utah were to be organized as territories without any
restriction or condition in regard to slavery.
3. The slave trade was to be abolished within the District of Columbia.
4. A Fugitive Slave Law, stringent enough to satisfy the South, was to
be passed.
5. Texas was to receive the price she demanded for the land ceded to New
Mexico (§ 394, note).
=398. New Fugitive Slave Law.=—That part of the Compromise which
provided for a Fugitive Slave Law was so stringent in its provisions
that it defeated its own end, by arousing so vigorous an opposition in
the North that it could not be enforced. It had been made retroactive,
in order that slaves who had taken refuge in the North before the
passage of the act might be seized by United States marshals, and,
without trial by jury, forcibly taken to their old masters. This feature
of the law had an instantaneous effect on public opinion. It soon came
to be seen that the people would not permit men and women who, as they
said, had become free by living in a free state, to be taken back into
slavery. The law was frustrated in many ways, the framers having
overlooked one special weakness in it. Though fugitives were not to be
entitled to trial by jury, the right of such a trial was not taken from
the rescuers. Many a fugitive was seized from the United States
marshals, and the rescuers, when tried, were acquitted by jury.[179] New
laws, known as Personal Safety Acts, designed to protect fugitives and
frustrate the operation of the Fugitive Slave Law, were passed by the
New England states and by New York, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois,
Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa. These were specially referred to as a
cause of complaint in the South Carolina Act of Secession. For these
various reasons, the number of slaves actually returned was very small,
and both sections were dissatisfied with the result.
=399. “The Underground Railroad.”=—There was also organized a system to
assist fugitives to escape to Canada, where they could not be arrested.
Stations were established, generally at private houses, where runaway
slaves could be concealed in the daytime and helped forward to the next
station in the night. The founder of this system was Levi Coffin, a
Quaker living near Philadelphia, who for several years helped into
freedom as many as one hundred slaves a year. This system, known as the
“Underground Railroad,” gradually extended from the East as far west as
the Missouri river. Thus, while the Fugitive Slave Law greatly inflamed
the North, the ways in which it was frustrated greatly inflamed the
South.
=400. New Leaders.=—Soon after the passage of this obnoxious law,
Calhoun, Clay, and Webster died. They were succeeded in influence by
younger men, of more strenuous beliefs and methods. Of these William H.
Seward of New York, Charles Sumner of Massachusetts, and Salmon P. Chase
of Ohio were prominent representatives of the anti-slavery element,
while Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois, Jefferson Davis of Mississippi,
William L. Yancey of Alabama, and Alexander H. Stephens of Georgia were
the most influential leaders on the other side.
INTERNATIONAL AND DOMESTIC AFFAIRS.
=401. The Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.=—Although the Compromise of 1850
overshadows every other event of the period covered by this chapter, it
should not absorb the student’s entire attention. Early in General
Taylor’s administration, certain international affairs of importance
became pressing. In 1826, the matter of a ship canal across Nicaragua or
Panama had been advocated by Henry Clay. “The benefits of such a canal,”
Clay wrote, “ought not to be exclusively appropriated to any one nation,
but should be extended to all parts of the globe.” In the course of the
following twenty years, Jackson and Polk often reverted to the subject
in the same general spirit. When John M. Clayton of Delaware entered
upon his duties as Taylor’s Secretary of State, he found that the
question demanded immediate consideration, for the reason that two
capitalists, one American and one British, were contemplating the
construction of such a canal across Nicaragua. The result was that on
April 19, 1850, what is known as the “Clayton-Bulwer Treaty” was signed
in Washington by Secretary Clayton and Sir Henry Lytton Bulwer, the
British Minister. The treaty provided that the two powers should
guarantee the neutrality and security of the canal when completed, and
they invited all friendly states to enter into similar stipulations with
them, “for the benefit of mankind, on equal terms to all.” This treaty
was afterward to be the subject of not a little embarrassment (§ 680).
=402. Railways and Steamships.=—The passage of the Compromise of 1850
seemed to promise peace with regard to slavery; but the aid given by the
South to attempts to conquer Cuba, especially those of Narciso
Lopez,[180] proved to thoughtful minds that sectional strife had been
allayed, not completely suppressed. Yet even then American industry and
enterprise were forging links of union against which sectional strife
could not long prevail. Before 1852, over ten thousand miles of railway
track had been laid in the United States, mainly in New England, the
Middle states, and the Northwest. The New York and Erie road became a
rival of the famous Erie Canal, and its completion in the spring of 1851
was the occasion of a Railway Jubilee, which was attended by Fillmore
and his Cabinet. Later in the year, a similar celebration was held in
Boston. On the ocean, also, speedier transportation was obtained. The
British Cunard Line and the American Collins Line ran races for Europe,
and travel was considerably stimulated. On the inland waters navigation
increased rapidly; but, owing to a lack of proper inspection, many
steamers took fire and great loss of life ensued. The spread of the
telegraph over the country also brought distant points into contact in a
way that would have been deemed incredible a generation before.
=403. Kossuth’s Visit.=—The great growth in population, the acquisition
of vast territories, the surprising industrial and commercial
development, were not only uniting the people of America, but were
stimulating their emotional nature. The quiet, staid country of two
generations before no longer existed. Popular furores became possible
and a love of the spectacular was developed. Barnum, the showman, laid
the foundations of his fortune. Newspapers rivaled one another in
securing news quickly. International yacht races were begun.
Distinguished men went on lecture tours through the country. Great
authors and actors came from abroad to receive American hospitality and
applause. There were women’s rights conventions and agitations in behalf
of temperance.[181] But all these elements of excitement were thrown
into the shade by the visit of Louis Kossuth, the great Hungarian orator
who had vainly attempted to secure the independence of his native land
and was now an exile. Invited by Congress, Kossuth late in 1851 reached
the United States, on the man-of-war _Mississippi_. He was received with
an enthusiasm unequaled in our history, save on the occasion of
Lafayette’s visit. Receptions were given him in all the chief cities,
and he astonished his hearers by the ease and power with which he spoke
English. But he made the mistake of trying to persuade the people that
the policy of non-interference in European affairs, established by
Washington, was an erroneous one. A few politicians, for party purposes,
seconded his proposal that the United States should intervene in behalf
of Hungary. But the nation at large held aloof from him; the novelty of
his visit wore off; and the great orator returned to Europe a
disappointed man.
[Illustration: FRANKLIN PIERCE.]
=404. The Campaign of 1852.=—The next excitement was caused by the
Presidential campaign. The Democratic convention held at Baltimore,—the
most convenient convention city in those days,—after much balloting,
set aside the chief candidates, Cass of Michigan, Douglas of Illinois,
Buchanan of Pennsylvania, and Marcy of New York, and chose General
Franklin Pierce[182] of New Hampshire, a man who hitherto had attracted
little attention. He had served in the Mexican War, and was upright in
character; but he possessed a mind little capable of guiding the country
in the great crisis that was approaching. His friendship with Jefferson
Davis and other Southern leaders foretold his alliance with the
advocates of slavery; but as people thought the slavery question settled
by the Compromise of 1850, this did not interfere with his chances at
the polls. William R. King of Alabama was nominated for Vice President,
and the Democrats went into the campaign with great hopes of success. On
the other hand, the Whigs were divided and depressed. After a hard
struggle, Fillmore—who had made many enemies by signing the Fugitive
Slave Law—and Daniel Webster had to yield the nomination to General
Winfield Scott, who was far from popular. Shortly afterward, the deaths
of Clay and Webster (who was bitterly disappointed and hostile to Scott)
robbed the party of its real leaders; important Southern Whigs held
aloof from Scott; the Free Soil party put up candidates of its own; and
the hero of the march to Mexico was badly beaten by a younger and
inferior man. Pierce had two hundred and fifty-four electoral votes to
Scott’s forty-two. The ambiguous attitude of the Whigs toward the
slavery question had hopelessly split the party asunder. Scott’s
personal unpopularity also partly accounts for the overwhelming
character of the defeat suffered by the Whigs; and doubtless there was a
general desire to give the Compromise a fair chance under the Democrats,
who heartily favored it.
* * * * *
REFERENCES.—See end of Chapter XXVI.
-----
[176] Meanwhile, New Mexico attracted little attention, except so far as
part of her territory was claimed by Texas. This claim, in the support
of which much sectional spirit was shown, but in which President Taylor
displayed great firmness and devotion to the Union, was finally
compromised. In December, 1853, by what is known as the Gadsden
Purchase, about 45,000 square miles were acquired from Mexico, and the
southern boundary of the United States was rounded off.
[177] Born in New York, 1801; died, 1872. Graduated at Union College,
1820; began practice as a lawyer at Auburn; was sent to state Senate,
1830; was defeated for governor in 1834, but was successful, 1839–1843;
entered the United States Senate, 1849; became prominent as an
anti-slavery leader; delivered famous speeches on “Higher Law,” and on
“Irrepressible Conflict,” 1858; was Lincoln’s chief rival for the
Republican nomination in 1860; Secretary of State under Lincoln and
Johnson, 1861–1869; was wounded by conspirators at the time of Lincoln’s
assassination; opposed Reconstruction by Congress; secured the cession
of Alaska, 1867.
[178] Born in New York, 1800; died, 1874. Worked on a farm and as an
apprentice; studied law; admitted to the bar in Erie County, 1823; sent
to legislature, 1828; removed to Buffalo in 1830, and won reputation as
a lawyer; in Congress, 1832–1834, 1836–1842; largely instrumental in
framing and passing tariff of 1842; defeated for governor of New York,
1844; comptroller of State of New York, 1847–1849; elected Vice
President, 1848; became President, July 10, 1850; failed of
re-nomination and retired from politics, 1852.
[179] One of the most famous cases of resistance to the law occurred in
Boston in May, 1854. A negro named Anthony Burns was arrested as a
fugitive slave. Before his final examination by the United States
Commissioner took place, a mass meeting to protest against his surrender
to the person claiming him as a slave was held in Faneuil Hall. A
premature attempt was made to rescue him and several persons were
wounded. Finally, when the Commissioner ordered his surrender, many
houses were draped in black and a riot was with difficulty averted.
Burns eventually became a Baptist clergyman in Canada.
[180] In 1849, 1850, and 1851. In the last attempt, Lopez was taken and
executed.
[181] The “Maine Liquor Law” went into effect in 1851.
[182] Born in New Hampshire, 1804; died, 1869. Graduated at Bowdoin
College, where he studied with Hawthorne and Longfellow; became a lawyer
and member of the Legislature; congressman, 1833–1837; United States
senator, 1837–1842; declined a Cabinet offer from President Polk;
volunteered in the Mexican War, and as brigadier general showed bravery
and skill; was president of the state Constitutional Convention in 1850;
was nominated for President of the United States on the forty-ninth
ballot, and elected in 1852; was defeated for renomination in 1856.
CHAPTER XXV.
=THE ADMINISTRATION OF PIERCE, 1853–1857.=
THE CONFUSION OF PARTIES.
[Illustration: CALEB CUSHING.]
=405. Character of Pierce’s Administration.=—The passage of the
Kansas-Nebraska Bill and the war in Kansas are the most important
features of Pierce’s administration (§§ 411-414). The new President,
being amiable and weak, yielded to the counsels of Jefferson Davis and
Caleb Cushing[183] of his Cabinet, and took a strong pro-slavery
position, with the result that he speedily lost his popularity, save in
the South. At first, however, he pleased most of his fellow-citizens,
especially on such occasions as his visit to the World’s Fair at New
York in 1853, where he made a glowing speech. But although Pierce
himself is almost forgotten, his administration is of great importance
to the student, since its leading events and measures were most
instrumental in bringing on the Civil War.
=406. The Know-Nothings.=—Pierce’s administration was distinguished by
the rise of a new, short-lived party, which for a time caused
apprehension in the older organizations, and had much to do with the
overthrow of the Whigs. This was the American party, which became
prominent in 1852. Its members were popularly known as “Know-Nothings,”
because, being bound by oath to reveal nothing concerning their
organization, they always answered inquiries in this negative fashion.
It had “lodges,” which sent delegates to secret nominating conventions,
and its strength could not be gauged before an election. Its chief
object was to prevent foreigners from being too easily and speedily
naturalized and to elect native-born Americans to office. Similar
organizations had existed before and have been developed since; but the
American people have never long tolerated illiberal and secret parties.
The Know-Nothings carried some state elections and put candidates in the
field for the campaign of 1856, but they soon after disappeared from the
political stage. The party furnished a refuge to many Whigs,
particularly from the South, for it was neutral on the slavery question.
Its growth was accelerated by the bad influence on local politics,
especially in New York City, exerted by the crowds of ignorant
foreigners who sought our shores after the Revolution of 1848 and the
great Irish famine. Nothing could have been more disgraceful than the
corrupt municipal government of New York City about this time, and many
citizens feared that the rest of the country would be contaminated.
=407. Attempts to Secure Cuba.=—Attempts to seize territory to the
south in the interests of slavery, continued during Pierce’s
administration. In 1853, a bold adventurer named William Walker gathered
rash followers and made an attack on Lower California, which completely
failed. The next year, leading Southerners like General Quitman, an
adopted citizen of Mississippi and a distinguished soldier in the
Mexican War, tried to secure Cuba by forcing the United States into a
war with Spain on account of the confiscation of an American steamer,
_The Black Warrior_. This attempt was merged in the intrigues that
produced the Ostend Manifesto.
=408. The Ostend Manifesto.=—On the 16th of August, 1854, William L.
Marcy, Pierce’s Secretary of State, wrote to Pierre Soulé, the American
minister at Madrid, that “much advantage might accrue from an
interchange of views between himself, Buchanan, and Mason” (the
Ministers to Great Britain and France) “in regard to the acquisition of
Cuba.” Accordingly, these three Ministers met at Ostend, Belgium, and
after a conference of a few days, promulgated the paper known as the
“Ostend Manifesto” (October 18, 1854). They declared, first, that Cuba
should belong to the United States; second, that the government might
well offer for the island the sum of one hundred and twenty million
dollars; and third, that if Spain would not accept this sum, the matter
of conquest ought to be considered. The manifesto was generally well
received in the South, but in the North it was characterized as “the
manifesto of brigands.”
=409. Filibustering.=—Soon Central America attracted the filibusters,
as these adventurous invaders of peaceable states were called. In 1854 a
little place named Greytown, on the Mosquito coast, was bombarded by an
American ship for no very good reason. The next year, Walker interfered
in a revolution in Nicaragua, and for a while got control of the state
by making a creature of his, named Rivas, president. The new government
was recognized by Pierce, but was shortly after overthrown.[184]
=410. Perry’s Expedition.=—Although the disgraceful actions of the
filibusters and the war in Kansas seem to mark Pierce’s administration
as a thoroughly discreditable one, it was not without bright features.
In 1854 a commercial treaty with Japan was secured as the result of a
naval expedition which had been sent out in 1852 under Commodore Matthew
C. Perry. This treaty, which was promulgated in 1855, is memorable as
opening a place for Japan among the great nations of the world.
[Illustration: AREAS OF FREEDOM AND SLAVERY IN 1854]
KANSAS-NEBRASKA LEGISLATION.
=411. Disappointment of the South: Kansas-Nebraska Bill.=—The South was
not only unable to secure Cuba and other slave territory, but could not
help seeing that the advantage it had anticipated from the Fugitive
Slave Law could never be realized. Some new measure was necessary, or
all the benefits of the Compromise would go to the North. Such a measure
presented itself in the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, put forward by Senator
Douglas of Illinois. This bill was framed on the untenable theory that
the Missouri Compromise had been overthrown by the Compromise of 1850,
and that the provision that slavery could not exist north of 36° 30′ was
no longer binding. In accordance with this theory, the author of the
bill proposed that the Missouri Compromise should be declared
“inoperative and void as being inconsistent with the principle of
non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the states and
territories.” It was also proposed that all the lands of the Louisiana
Purchase north of 36° 30′ should be organized as territories and in due
time should be admitted as states, either free or slave, as the voters
of each territory might determine. The great question was thus to be
settled, not by United States law, but by what came to be called
“Popular Sovereignty.”
=412. Indignation of the North.=—The bill aroused the greatest
political agitation the country had ever known, for the opponents of the
measure took the ground that it turned over to possible slavery a vast
tract that had forever been dedicated to freedom. They said it was an
outrageous violation of contract to take away half of the Missouri
Compromise, when the advocates of slavery had enjoyed the advantage of
the other half, as they had in the admission of Missouri as a slave
state above the line of 36° 30′. The bill was opposed with the utmost
vigor by Seward, Sumner, and other anti-slavery leaders, but it was
passed and became a law, May 30, 1854.
=413. Occupation of Kansas.=—Now began a race for the settlement of the
new territory, as the only possible way in which freedom could be
protected. As Kansas bordered on Missouri, it was evident that here was
to be the battle ground. Slave owners from Missouri rushed in to take
possession of the soil, but the people of the North were not slow to see
the danger. An Emigrant Aid Society was quickly organized in
Massachusetts, by Eli Thayer, to encourage and fit out emigrants to the
new territory. Though the slaveholders were first in the field, people
from the North soon followed in ever increasing numbers. Party spirit
ran so high that collisions were inevitable. There was universal
disorder and some bloodshed. Guerrilla bands of both parties wandered
over the country and fought wherever they met. On the 21st of May, 1856,
the town of Lawrence, the headquarters of the anti-slavery party, was
attacked by marauders from Missouri, popularly known as “Border
Ruffians,” and several of the most important buildings were sacked and
burned. Three days later, a deliberately planned massacre of slave
owners was perpetrated in retaliation, at Pottawatomie, by an
anti-slavery band led by John Brown.
=414. Advantages of the North in the Contest.=—The anti-slavery cause
was helped by the unusual severity of the winter of 1855–1856, which
made it evident that slavery could not prosper in Kansas. The largest
slaveholder in the territory was obliged, with his own hands, to cut and
haul wood to keep his negroes warm, and even then one of them froze to
death in his bed. Meanwhile, the Free State men increased rapidly in
numbers.
[Illustration: CHARLES SUMNER.]
=415. Assault upon Sumner.=—While the Kansas question was raising to a
white heat all sections of the country, an event occurred to intensify
the excitement. In the course of the long debate in Congress on the
Kansas troubles, Charles Sumner,[185] on the 19th and 20th of May, 1856,
delivered his celebrated speech, “The Crime against Kansas.” It was the
most terrible philippic ever uttered in the Senate, and it exasperated
the men of the South beyond measure. Particularly severe was Sumner’s
attack on Senator Butler, of South Carolina. Two days after the delivery
of this speech, Sumner was writing a letter at his desk, after the
Senate had adjourned, when he was approached by Preston S. Brooks, from
South Carolina, a nephew of Butler and a member of the House of
Representatives. Brooks struck Sumner repeated blows on the head with a
cane and felled him to the floor. The injuries Sumner received affected
his spine and were so serious that it was more than three years before
he could be restored to a fair amount of vigor. While, in the South, a
few persons deprecated the assault, Brooks was welcomed by the masses as
a hero. In the North the attack was universally condemned, and stirred
the deepest indignation. An effort was made in the House of
Representatives to expel Brooks, but only one Southerner voted for his
expulsion, and the motion failed to receive the necessary two-thirds
majority. A severe vote of censure, however, was passed by a large
majority; whereupon Brooks resigned his place, and appealed to his
constituents for indorsement and reëlection. In the election that
followed, only six votes were cast against him. The speech, the assault,
and the indorsement of Brooks inflamed every part of the country.
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
=416. Origin of the Republican Party.=—It was during the excitement
that followed the assault on Sumner that politicians prepared for the
coming Presidential election of 1856. The overwhelming defeat of the
Whigs at the election in 1852 seemed at the time to give the Democrats a
long lease of power. In reality, they soon found themselves confronted
by political foes more determined than the Whigs. The old Whig party had
been shattered by differences on the question of slavery. Evidently
there was call for a new party on the great questions now at issue, and
the Republican party was the result. At a political meeting held at
Ripon, Wisconsin, in May, 1854, it was resolved that another party
should be formed and that it should be called “Republican.” It is
generally admitted that the first formal adoption of the name, which was
probably due to a suggestion of Horace Greeley, and the publication of
an elaborate platform were the work of a convention held at Jackson,
Michigan, on the 6th of July following. The new party designation was
immediately adopted by state conventions in Maine, Ohio, Indiana,
Illinois, Wisconsin, and Iowa. So extremely vigorous was the
organization of the Republicans, that, in the fall of 1854, they elected
enough members to control the House of Representatives and chose as
Speaker, Nathaniel P. Banks, of Massachusetts. The first National
Convention of the party was held at Pittsburgh on February 22, 1856; but
it was not until June 17, at Philadelphia, that a platform was adopted
and candidates for the Presidency and Vice Presidency were chosen. The
platform declared that “the Constitution confers upon Congress sovereign
power over the Territories of the United States for their government,
and that in the exercise of this power, it is both the right and the
imperative duty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin
relics of barbarism, polygamy and slavery.” Upon the stand thus taken,
the Republicans soon secured political supremacy in the North and West.
[Illustration: JOHN C. FRÉMONT.]
=417. The Campaign of 1856.=—The Republicans nominated John C.
Frémont[186] of California, a famous explorer of the West, for
President, and William L. Dayton of New Jersey for Vice President. The
Democrats, shelving the now unpopular Pierce, nominated James
Buchanan,[187]—a weak character, far past the prime of life, but a man
who had held high positions and was likely to carry the important state
of Pennsylvania. John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky was chosen as
Buchanan’s running mate. Buchanan won at the polls, securing one hundred
and seventy-four electoral votes to Frémont’s one hundred and fourteen.
But the Republicans had made a better fight than any new party had ever
done before and had carried most of the Northern and some of the Western
states. It was evident that the country was being divided sectionally in
politics,—the North and West being destined to become more and more
anti-slavery, or Republican, the South to be overwhelmingly pro-slavery,
or Democratic. Many persons, especially in the South, argued that this
state of things would warrant a dissolution of the Union, since the
North and West combined might be strong enough to interfere with slavery
in the states.
* * * * *
REFERENCES.—See end of Chapter XXVI.
-----
[183] Born in Massachusetts, 1800; died, 1879. Graduated at Harvard,
1817; studied law, served in the legislature, and traveled in Europe;
congressman, 1834–1843; ceased to be a Whig and supported Tyler, soon
affiliating himself with the Democrats; served in Mexican War and became
brigadier general; appointed Judge of Massachusetts Supreme Court but
soon resigned to become Attorney-General under Pierce; held other
offices of importance, among them the mission to Spain (1874–77); wrote
several books and was a man of unquestioned ability, although his change
of politics and Southern sympathies brought upon him much criticism.
[184] Walker made another attempt in 1857, but was arrested at Greytown
and brought to the United States for trial. President Buchanan being
himself desirous of acquisitions of territory to the south, and the
pro-slavery leaders openly favoring Walker, the latter was not punished.
In 1860 he made another descent on the Central American coast. This time
he was captured, tried, and shot.
[185] Born in Boston, 1811; died, 1874. Graduated at Harvard, 1830;
studied law; traveled in Europe and became noted as an anti-slavery
orator, 1830–1850; helped organize the Free Soil Party in 1848; was
elected United States senator in 1851; became the foremost anti-slavery
advocate in the Senate, attracting universal attention by his speeches,
“Freedom National; Slavery Sectional,” and “The Crime against Kansas”;
assaulted by Preston S. Brooks of South Carolina (May 22, 1856); was
twice reëlected to the Senate; broke with Grant and Republican senators
after delivering a violent speech against President Grant, and was
removed from chairmanship of Committee on Foreign Affairs, 1871;
supported Greeley, in 1872; gave his last efforts to securing civil
rights for colored citizens of the South.
[186] Born in Georgia, 1818; died, 1890. Was educated in Charleston,
S.C.; served a short term in the navy, then joined the United States
Topographical Engineers, and explored a part of the Rocky Mountains in
1842; explored, with great energy and skill, Utah, the basin of the
Columbia, and the passes of the Sierra Nevada, 1843–1844; conducted
other explorations from the Santa Fé to Sacramento and in Southern
California, from 1846 to 1854, and gained for himself the title of
“Pathfinder”; was nominated and defeated for President in 1856;
commanded in Missouri in 1861, and in Virginia in 1862, without great
success.
[187] Born in Pennsylvania, 1791; died, 1868. Graduated from Dickinson
College in 1809; studied law; congressman from Pennsylvania, 1821–1831;
Minister to Russia, 1831–1833; member of the United States Senate,
1833–1845; Secretary of State, 1845–1849; candidate for President, 1852;
Minister to England, 1853–1856; President of the United States,
1857–1861, during which time his temporizing policy was severely
criticised.
CHAPTER XXVI.
=THE ADMINISTRATION OF BUCHANAN, 1857–1861.=
THE SUPREME COURT AND SLAVERY.
[Illustration: ROGER B. TANEY.]
=418. Dred Scott Decision.=—Two days after Buchanan’s inauguration, the
Supreme Court rendered a decision that had a tremendous influence on
public opinion with regard to the question of slavery. A colored man,
Dred Scott by name, was held as a slave in Missouri, but having been
taken by his master into Illinois and Minnesota, he brought suit in a
United States court to establish his freedom. The question finally
reached the Supreme Court, where a decision was rendered March 6, 1857.
The court held:—
1. That negroes had not been regarded as citizens by the framers
of the Constitution, and that, therefore, they could not bring
suit in a United States court.
2. That the Constitution recognizes the right of property in
slaves, and recognizes no difference between such property and
any other, and that therefore Congress could not limit the right
of property in slaves, even in the territories.
3. That the Missouri Compromise, limiting the right of property
in slaves, was unconstitutional, and therefore null and void;
and that, therefore, slave owners could carry their slaves into
any part of the territories, and hold them as such without
regard to the line established by the Missouri Compromise.
The opinion was rendered by Chief Justice Taney,[188] and was assented
to by a majority of the court. Justices McLean and Curtis, however,
dissented, and Curtis presented an elaborate dissenting opinion. The
importance of the decision lay in the fact that it was an authoritative
approval by the Supreme Court of views advanced by Calhoun, and
generally indorsed by the South.
=419. The Dissenting Opinion.=—The North, naturally, accepted the views
of the dissenting opinion, which held:—
1. That free negroes had been citizens before the adoption of
the Constitution.
2. That the Constitution had not limited the rights of such
negroes as citizens.
3. That as many as seven Acts had been passed by Congress
limiting slavery in the territories, and that these Acts had
been assented to by Presidents who had been in the
Constitutional Convention.
4. That the constitutionality of these Acts had never been
questioned.
5. That the validity of the Missouri Compromise was not before
the court, and that the dissenting Justices did “not hold any
opinion of this court, or any court, binding when expressed on a
question not legitimately before it.”
=420. Influence of the Decision.=—The far-reaching effects of this
decision were at once apparent. The Republican party had been organized
on the fundamental avowal that it was the duty of Congress to keep
slavery out of the territories (§ 416). But if Congress had no
constitutional right to interfere with slavery in the territories, the
Republican party could have no right to exist. The decision also
shattered Douglas’s doctrine of Popular Sovereignty; for, if Congress
had no right to exclude slavery, it could not confer such a right upon
the territorial legislature. The South asked, “What are you going to do
about it?” The North virtually replied that it adopted the view of
Justice Curtis and rejected the decision as of no binding force. Many
persons in the North accepted a doctrine that had some time before been
promulgated by Mr. Seward,—that there is a “higher law” of right and
morality than that of the Constitution.
=421. Abolition Orators.=—Public feeling during these years was much
intensified in the North by the political speeches delivered by
accomplished orators in various parts of the country. The most prominent
of these speakers was Wendell Phillips of Boston, who gave his life
chiefly to anti-slavery agitation and exerted a vast influence. His work
was supplemented effectively by the speeches of Theodore Parker, George
William Curtis, Theodore Tilton, Anna Dickinson, and others.
[Illustration: HARRIET BEECHER STOWE.[189]]
=422. Two Important Books.=—In the course of this agitation, public
opinion was greatly affected by the appearance of two very important
books on the subject of slavery. Mrs. Harriet Beecher Stowe’s _Uncle
Tom’s Cabin_ appeared in 1852. Its object was to represent the horrors
of slavery, and it proved to be one of the most influential novels ever
published. Though it was intended to represent slavery in the strongest
possible light, the picture was somewhat relieved for the people of the
South by the fact that the worst characters in the book were “renegades”
from the North. Over three hundred thousand copies were sold within a
year of its publication, and in the course of five years it had
powerfully inflamed the feelings of all the Northern people. In 1857,
appeared H. R. Helper’s _Impending Crisis of the South_. It was written
by a representative of the “poor white” class of North Carolina, whose
purpose was to arraign slavery from the point of view of the Southern
free white laborer. The author described Southern society, and showed
how slavery had reduced the poorer white people to a condition of abject
misery. The book did much to arouse the fears of the Southern slave
owners.
KANSAS AND UTAH.
=423. Buchanan’s Weakness.=—Meanwhile, President Buchanan had been
showing in many ways that he did not realize the gravity of the
situation. He was an old man and inclined to rely on Democratic leaders
of strong pro-slavery proclivities. Thus, although himself a Northerner,
he had little support from his own section. His Cabinet contained four
Southerners, while the Secretary of State, General Cass, was a
sympathizer with the Southern attitude toward the slavery question.
Eventually this Cabinet was broken up and a stronger one obtained (§
441), but not before many of the departments, especially those of War
and of the Treasury, were reduced to a state of great disorganization.
Indeed, so badly were the finances of the nation managed, that treasury
notes had to be issued in order that national insolvency might be
avoided. Yet more than once President Buchanan proposed to Congress that
Cuba should be purchased, and recommended other rash legislation, which,
if carried out, would probably have led to a war with Mexico and the
states of Central America.
[Illustration: JAMES BUCHANAN.]
=424. Affairs in Kansas.=—One of Buchanan’s most important appointments
was that of Robert J. Walker of Mississippi, who had been Secretary of
the Treasury under Polk, as governor of Kansas. Walker understood that
he was to cease trying to force slavery upon the Kansas settlers, but
was rather to attempt to make the territory a state favorable to the
Democrats. On this understanding he succeeded in inducing the friends of
freedom to vote for members of the territorial legislature, with the
result that they obtained a clear majority in that body. But the slavery
advocates, at a convention held at Lecompton, adopted a constitution
favoring slavery, with a proviso that the article relating to the
institution was the only one that should be submitted to the people for
ratification. Fearing some trick, the Free State people stayed away from
the polls, and the Lecompton constitution was easily carried by a
partisan vote. Walker then went to Washington in order to protest
against conduct which, it was believed, was connived at by the
administration. He found that Buchanan and his advisers were hearty
advocates of the Lecompton constitution, whereupon he resigned his
governorship.
=425. Failure of the Lecompton Scheme.=—Meanwhile, the Free State
legislature of Kansas had submitted the whole Lecompton constitution to
the people, and it had been rejected by over eleven thousand majority.
Yet Buchanan, in a special message to Congress, urged the admission of
Kansas as a state under the obnoxious instrument. A long and fierce
debate was the result, Senator Douglas, to his credit, standing out
against the majority of his party. The pro-slavery Democrats were
obstinate, in spite of many warnings, and pushed matters to a vote. The
administration’s measure for making Kansas a slave state passed the
Senate, but failed in the House. Later a discreditable bill attempting
to bribe Kansas to come in under the pro-slavery constitution passed
Congress; but the Kansas people refused by a large majority to enter the
Union hampered by slavery, even if they could thereby acquire a large
grant of public lands. The bill which offered Kansas this bribe was
popularly known as “Lecompton Junior.” After it was rejected by the
Kansans, affairs in the region became comparatively quiet. The territory
was not finally admitted as a state until 1861.
=426. The Mormons.=—Buchanan was more successful in his dealings with
the Mormons of Utah. This religious sect was founded in 1830 by their
Prophet, Joseph Smith, and was forced to move steadily westward from the
State of New York. They settled first in Ohio, then in Illinois, where
in 1840 they founded the town of Nauvoo. These Latter-Day Saints, as
they were called, soon had troubles, without great fault of their own,
with the authorities of Illinois, in the course of which Smith was
arrested. Shortly after he was shot by a mob (June 21, 1844). Brigham
Young was chosen leader of the new church in the Prophet’s place, and
the next year the Mormons left Illinois. After many vicissitudes, a
settlement was made in Utah, and Salt Lake City was founded in 1848. The
next year, Young was elected governor of Deseret, as the territory was
first named. In 1850 Congress established the Territory of Utah, and, in
1851, Young became its authorized governor. In 1852 he proclaimed
polygamy to be a tenet of the Mormon church. This and other causes led
to difficulties with judges and other officers of the United States, who
in consequence left Utah.
=427. Buchanan’s Management of the Mormon Difficulty.=—Affairs soon
reached such a pass as to require the removal of Brigham Young from his
position as territorial governor, the Mormon desperadoes, under the name
of Danites, or “destroying angels,” having inaugurated a small reign of
terror. Buchanan supported the newly appointed governor, Alfred Cumming,
with forces under General Albert Sidney Johnston, who was much harassed,
however, by the destruction of his supply trains. Congress hesitated to
give the President all the troops needed, for fear he might use them in
Kansas; but he managed the affair well, notwithstanding, and with
augmented forces and judicious pardons secured comparative tranquillity
in Utah before the summer of 1858. But Congress still refused to give so
strange a sect the right either to form a state or to elect their own
officers.[190]
THE GREAT DEBATES.
[Illustration: STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.]
=428. Lincoln and Douglas.=—The people of the settled portions of the
country were more interested in a picturesque political campaign than in
the pacification of a far-off territory. The term of Senator Douglas was
to expire in 1859, and he appealed to public opinion in Illinois for
reëlection. The Republicans put forward Abraham Lincoln as their
representative to oppose him. The men were unlike in almost every
respect. Douglas[191] in early life had come from Vermont to Illinois,
where he had risen to distinction as a lawyer and a debater. In public
speech he was keen, ingenious, and powerful, and his leadership of the
movement in behalf of Popular Sovereignty had given him a national
reputation. Lincoln,[192] on the other hand, had been born to the most
abject poverty in Kentucky, and in early life had moved with his parents
to Indiana, and then to Illinois. In his boyhood he had lived in a log
hut, and had picked up almost the whole of his education by reading and
study at odd moments. At length he studied law, and, though never a
learned lawyer, he early showed remarkable power in discovering the
turning point of a case, and presenting it with such clearness and force
that he was very successful. By a careful study of a few of the best
writers, he made himself a master of accurate and powerful English
speech. He also became very skillful as a judge of human nature and in
the art of persuading an audience. To these great qualities he added the
still greater one of an honesty and integrity of thought and character
so pronounced and transparent that he was generally respected and loved.
At the time of this senatorial contest, Lincoln was forty-nine years of
age; Douglas was forty-five.
=429. The Lincoln-Douglas Debates.=—In the spring of 1858, Lincoln
challenged Douglas to a series of public debates on the great questions
of the day. They arranged for seven meetings in different parts of
Illinois, and those meetings are memorable for the thoroughness with
which questions then agitating the nation were discussed. Lincoln at the
outset announced the Republican doctrine that slavery was entitled to
the protection of Congress where it existed, but that it could and ought
to be prevented from going into the territories where it did not already
exist. Douglas, throughout the discussion, held that the Dred Scott
Decision was binding, and tried to reconcile it with the notion of
Popular Sovereignty. Lincoln very shrewdly saw the impossibility of
reconciling these two views, and used his advantage with great skill and
vigor.
[Illustration: A TYPICAL PIONEER’S CABIN.
Built by Lincoln’s father when he moved to Illinois.]
=430. The Freeport Doctrine.=—The turning point in the debates was at
Freeport, where Lincoln put to Douglas this question: “Can the people of
a United States territory, in any legal way, against the will of any
citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from its limits prior to
the formation of a state constitution?” The Republican committee
managing the campaign, urged Lincoln not to ask Douglas the question.
They said, “If Douglas answers ‘yes,’ he will surely be elected, because
the people of Illinois believe in Squatter Sovereignty.” Lincoln’s reply
was in substance: “Very well, if he answers ‘no,’ he cannot be elected
senator in Illinois. If he answers ‘yes,’ as from his Squatter
Sovereignty doctrine he will be obliged to do, he will offend the South
in such a way that he cannot be elected President in 1860. I am looking
for the larger game.” Lincoln insisted upon asking the question, and his
prediction proved true. Douglas answered “yes,” and tried to reconcile
Squatter Sovereignty with the Dred Scott Decision, in what came to be
known as the “Freeport Doctrine”; but Lincoln pointed out with great
power that such a reconciliation was absolutely impossible. Though
Douglas was reëlected to the Senate, as the Republican committee
predicted he would be if the question were asked, the rift in the
Democratic party soon made it apparent that its Northern and Southern
sections could not unite on any one candidate for President. Lincoln had
accomplished his object, though he had lost the senatorship.
=431. Other Speeches of Lincoln and Douglas.=—In 1859, Douglas spoke
and wrote much, in order to define his position on the relations of the
Federal power and the power of the individual states. In all his
utterances he often referred to the positions held by Lincoln, and,
especially in the South, he tried to recover what he had lost in the
discussion of what was known as the “Freeport Doctrine.” Lincoln
delivered, at Columbus and Cincinnati, speeches which pointed out with
merciless logic the impossibility of Douglas’s contention. These
speeches tersely reproduced the arguments he had used in Illinois, and
in print they had an enormous circulation. Lincoln’s prominence,
moreover, was greatly increased by a masterly speech on February 27,
1860, at the Cooper Institute, in New York City. Taking as his subject,
“The Crisis,” he analyzed the situation, and presented it with a logical
force and clearness which placed the speech in the highest rank of
argumentative orations. This speech, and those he immediately afterward
made in New England, caused Lincoln to be better known throughout the
East; he was already very popular in the West.
JOHN BROWN AND PUBLIC OPINION.
[Illustration: JOHN BROWN.]
=432. John Brown’s Raid.=—In the later months of 1859 the country in
all its parts was greatly moved by a fanatical attempt to induce the
slaves of Virginia to revolt and insist upon freedom. John Brown,[193]
who, as we have seen, played a conspicuous part in the Kansas
difficulties, held the views of the abolitionists with all the stern
severity of a seventeenth century Puritan. He believed that slavery was
the “sum of all abominations,” and that he must devote himself to its
overthrow. In July, 1859, he rented two houses on the Maryland side of
the Potomac, about four miles from Harper’s Ferry. Here arms were
collected, and on the 16th of October Brown mustered eighteen men, five
of whom were negroes, for his intended attack. They cut the telegraph
wires, and seized the watchman on the bridge; then, crossing to the
Virginia side, Brown and two followers broke into the United States
armory, and, binding the watchman, remained on guard. Before midnight he
was master of Harper’s Ferry. But the inevitable result followed. The
negroes refused to revolt, and soon the raiders were surrounded by an
overwhelming force. They fought desperately, and did not surrender
until, of the nineteen, ten had been killed. Four escaped and five were
taken prisoners. Brown himself, after receiving several wounds in the
head and body, was cut down and captured. Notwithstanding his wounds, he
was brought to trial eight days after his arrest and, after a fair
examination, was condemned to be hanged on the 2d of December. He died
in the unwavering belief that he had contributed to a great cause.
Almost the whole nation was thrown into an uproar. Republicans generally
disavowed and condemned the act, but the people of the South had their
fears multiplied.
=433. Resolutions of Jefferson Davis.=—On February 2, 1860, Jefferson
Davis, who had already come to be recognized as the ablest leader of the
Southern Democrats, submitted to the Senate a series of resolutions
designed to formulate the Southern party doctrine. The most significant
and important of these resolutions was the fourth, which declared that
“neither Congress, nor a Territorial Legislature, whether by direct
legislation or by legislation of an indirect and unfriendly character,
possesses power to annul or impair the constitutional right of any
citizen of the United States to take his slave property into the common
territories, and there hold and enjoy the same while the territorial
condition remains.” This resolution was no doubt intended not only to
formulate a doctrine for the guidance of the South, but also to inflict
a fatal stab upon Douglas, for the Illinois Senator had taken the
ground, in the “Freeport Doctrine,” that notwithstanding the Dred Scott
Decision, the people of a territory could make slavery impossible by
what he called “unfriendly legislation.”
=434. Movements of Public Opinion in the South.=—While these
discussions were going on in the North, public opinion was also taking
form in the South. In various conventions, notably the one held at
Nashville in 1850, much had been done to foster disunion sentiments.
Secession seemed on the point of immediate accomplishment, and would
very probably have taken place, but for the opposition of some of the
leading Whigs of the South and the adoption of the Compromise of 1850.
Although the crisis in that year was tided over, the South did not cease
to proclaim that if ever a President should be elected by a sectional
vote secession would inevitably follow. Alexander H. Stephens, of
Georgia, and some of the other leading Whigs attempted to oppose the
movement as impolitic and unlikely to succeed, but they were swept away
by an irresistible tide of public opinion, led by the more strenuous of
the politicians. This movement increased in violence from 1850 to 1860.
The fact that the reopening of the foreign slave trade was boldly
advocated in various trade conventions, shows plainly how far the
extreme pro-slavery men were willing to go.
THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1860.
[Illustration: SALMON P. CHASE.]
=435. Democratic Nominating Conventions.=—The first outbreak of the
coming storm occurred in the Democratic National Convention of 1860.
This was held in Charleston, South Carolina, and lasted from April 23 to
April 30. The delegates of the South were marshaled by William L. Yancey
of Alabama; those of the North by Senator George H. Pugh of Ohio. The
main contest was over the majority and minority reports of the Committee
on Platform. While the Southern delegates demanded a declaration in
accordance with Davis’s resolution that neither Congress nor any
territorial government had the right to legislate in regard to slavery
in any territory, the delegates of the North planted themselves firmly
on the “Freeport Doctrine” of Popular Sovereignty. The storm raged with
the utmost fury, in the midst of which Yancey declared that if the
Popular Sovereignty doctrine were adopted, the Southern delegation would
withdraw from the Convention. The followers of Douglas secured a
majority, whereupon Yancey and his followers made good their threat, and
marched out. This was the beginning of practical secession. Though the
remaining delegates were a majority, they were not two-thirds of the
Convention, and, therefore, no nomination under the rule of Democratic
conventions could be made. The seceding faction adjourned to meet at
Richmond, June 11, the others at Baltimore, June 18. An attempt was made
to unite them at Baltimore, but both sides were firm, and the effort was
fruitless. The consequence was that the Democrats finally made three
nominations. John C. Breckinridge, of Kentucky, was the candidate of the
Southern wing; Stephen A. Douglas, of Illinois, of the Northern; and
John Bell, of Tennessee, of the Conservatives, who vainly hoped still to
bring the factions together. Thus the predictions of Lincoln were
abundantly fulfilled.
=436. The Republican Nominating Convention.=—The Republican Convention
met on the 16th of May, in Chicago. Seward was the most prominent
candidate, but the names of Chase[194] of Ohio, Cameron of Pennsylvania,
Dayton of New Jersey, and Bates of Missouri were all presented by the
delegates of their respective states. Lincoln’s name showed great
strength, as he was supported not only by Illinois, but also by many
votes from Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, and New England. The platform
adopted was in strict accordance with all Lincoln’s private and public
utterances. It advocated no interference with slavery where it existed,
no extension of slavery into the territories, and no reopening of the
slave trade. On the first ballot, Seward had one hundred and
seventy-three and one-half votes, and Lincoln followed with one hundred
and two. On the second, Seward had one hundred and eighty-four and a
half, and Lincoln one hundred and eighty-one. The excitement was
tremendous. The number necessary for a choice was two hundred and
thirty-three. On the third ballot, Lincoln had two hundred and
thirty-one and a half, while Seward had fallen back to one hundred and
eighty. There was no resisting the tide. Before the figures were
removed, a delegate from Ohio sprang upon his chair, and reported a
change of four votes from Chase to Lincoln. In an instant, one of the
tellers shouted, “Lincoln!” whereupon it seemed as if the ten thousand
persons present had become insane with enthusiasm. A cannon on the roof
of the hall announced the result to the city in accordance with a
preconcerted understanding. The chairman of the New York delegation,
William M. Evarts, then moved that the nomination be made unanimous.
This harmonious result was welcomed by Republicans in all parts of the
country.
=437. The Presidential Canvass.=—The campaign was conducted with a
vigor and an enthusiasm that had not been known since 1840. Lincoln made
no speeches and wrote no letters for publication, but made himself
accessible at Springfield to all callers who might care to meet him. But
such a course was not followed by the Democrats. No progress was made
toward reunion. On the contrary, the Breckinridge, or Southern wing,
waged unrelenting war on Douglas, both in discussion and in the promise
of distribution of patronage. Douglas was not slow to retaliate. He
entered at once on an extensive campaigning tour and made speeches in
many states, both North and South.
=438. The Position of Douglas.=—The most important utterance of all the
campaign was one made by Douglas at Norfolk, Virginia. He was asked in
writing whether he was in favor of maintaining the Union by force. He
declared, without a moment’s hesitation: “I answer emphatically that it
is the duty of the President of the United States, and all others in
authority under him, to enforce the laws, and I, as in duty bound by my
oath of fidelity to the Constitution, would do all in my power to aid
the Government of the United States in maintaining the laws against all
resistance to them, come from what quarter it might. In other words, I
think the President, whoever he may be, should treat all attempts to
break up the Union, by resistance to the laws, as Old Hickory treated
the nullifiers in 1832.” The South made the fatal mistake of supposing
that this view was not held by a large majority of the Democrats of the
North. In reality, it was this view, so frankly expressed by Douglas,
that finally united an overwhelming majority of the Northern Democrats
in supporting, with more or less heartiness, the Republicans in the
great war that was at hand.
=439. Result of the Election.=—In the election, Lincoln received one
hundred and eighty electoral votes; Breckinridge, seventy-two; Bell,
thirty-nine; and Douglas, twelve. Lincoln received the vote of every
free state except New Jersey, whose vote was divided, four electors
voting for Lincoln, and three for Douglas. Douglas, in addition to the
three votes from New Jersey, received nine from Missouri; those of the
other Southern states were divided between Breckinridge and Bell.
SECESSION OF THE SOUTH.
=440. Secession of South Carolina and Other States.=—At the time of the
election, the legislature of South Carolina was in session. As soon as
the result was known, that body called a State Convention to meet and
consider the situation. The Convention met, and on the 20th of December,
repealed the Act ratifying the Constitution, and declared that the union
between South Carolina and the other states was dissolved. Before
Lincoln’s inauguration, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas,
and Florida had followed the example of South Carolina. They seized all
the military posts of the United States within their territory, a
procedure that had been made easy by the strange doctrine of Buchanan
that, although a state had no right to secede, the United States had no
right to prevent it from seceding and carrying United States property
with it.
=441. Opposition to the Seceders.=—The first step in opposition to the
seceders was taken by Major Robert Anderson of Kentucky, who abandoned
the untenable Fort Moultrie of which he was in charge, and posted
himself in Fort Sumter, which, being on an island, could be more easily
held for the Union if succor were speedily provided by the authorities
in Washington. The latter were vacillating, however, or else were in
open sympathy with the secessionists. The President was at least strong
enough to resist the demand of the South Carolina Commissioners that
Anderson should be ordered to evacuate Fort Sumter, and he also refused
to receive further communications from the commissioners. Finally, too,
he surrounded himself with a loyal Cabinet, through resignations which
were voluntary, but should have been demanded. Chief among his new
advisers were Jeremiah S. Black of Pennsylvania, Secretary of State;
Edwin M. Stanton of Pennsylvania, Attorney-General; Joseph Holt of
Kentucky, Secretary of War; and John A. Dix[195] of New York, Secretary
of the Treasury.
=442. The Star of the West.=—The reorganized Cabinet insisted on
reënforcing Anderson at Fort Sumter, but the attempt was made only with
a merchant steamer, the _Star of the West_, which turned back at the
fire of the Carolinian batteries (January 9, 1861). This rather weak
step served the Southerners with matter for indignation and for charges
that the North was bent on war. It also led to the discovery that Jacob
Thompson of Mississippi, the Secretary of the Interior, had warned the
South Carolinians of the intended reënforcement. Thompson at once
resigned, and Buchanan arranged a sort of armistice with the Southerners
still in Congress, by which he was to be allowed to finish his
administration in peace, it being understood that the forts should be
neither reënforced nor captured.
[Illustration: CONFEDERATE CAPITOL,
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA.]
=443. Last Attempts at Compromise.=—In the course of 1860 and the early
part of 1861, several attempts were made to reach a compromise. The most
famous of these was the one introduced by Senator Crittenden, of
Kentucky, December 18, 1860. He proposed a constitutional amendment in
which the main clauses should prohibit slavery north of 36° 30′, but
protect it, as other property is protected, in all territory south of
that line, and should arrange for admitting states north or south of
that line, with or without slavery, as their constitutions might
provide. While the Compromise was before a committee of thirteen, of
which Seward was the most prominent Republican and Jefferson Davis the
most prominent Democrat, Seward was offered by Lincoln the Secretaryship
of State. Lincoln wrote, “On the territorial question, I am inflexible.”
In further explanation he said that the adoption of the Compromise would
only postpone the difficulties that then confronted the nation. In the
committee, the Republicans voted against the Compromise, and Davis of
Mississippi, and Toombs of Georgia, voted with them. The Republicans
were responsible for its defeat. On January 3, 1861, Crittenden proposed
that the whole subject of his Compromise be submitted to a direct vote
of the people. Douglas powerfully supported the proposition; but Davis,
in an elaborate speech in behalf of the South, made it apparent that
compromise was now impossible. Other minor attempts met with similar
failure.
[Illustration: JEFFERSON DAVIS.]
=444. Southern Confederacy Formed.=—Soon after the Ordinances of
Secession were passed by the several Southern states, their
representatives, with only two exceptions, withdrew, one by one, from
Congress. The Secession Conventions appointed delegates in number equal
to their former senators and representatives at Washington, and the
members so appointed met at Montgomery, Alabama, February 4, 1861, to
form a Southern Confederacy. President Buchanan offered no opposition to
this movement. The body was soon organized by the choice of Howell Cobb,
of Georgia, as chairman. A provisional government for one year, under
the name, “The Confederate States of America,” was adopted February 8,
and the following day Jefferson Davis[196] was chosen President of the
Confederacy, and Alexander H. Stephens,[197] of Georgia, Vice President.
The Constitution, as elaborated and completed, was adopted on the 11th
of March. Stephens, as Vice President, was formally inaugurated on the
10th of February, and Davis, as President, on the 18th. Thus the
Confederate government was fully installed two weeks before the
inauguration of Lincoln.
[Illustration: ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.]
=445. Stephens and Lincoln on the Causes of the War.=—Soon after the
inaugural ceremonies in the South, the newly chosen Vice President, in a
speech at Savannah, explained the grounds of secession. After referring
to Thomas Jefferson, he said: “The prevailing ideas entertained by him
and most of the leading statesmen of the time of the formation of the
old Constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in
violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle,
socially, morally, and politically. . . . Our government is founded upon
exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone
rests upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man;
that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and
normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history
of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral
truth.”[198] For the purpose of reducing the causes of the war to a
nutshell, this utterance may be placed in contrast with the summary of
the Northern views by Lincoln: “Slavery is wrong and must not be
extended. No state can in any way get out of the Union without the
consent of the others. It is the duty of the President and of the other
public functionaries to run the machine as it is.” At about the same
time, in answer to an inquiry, Lincoln wrote to Stephens: “You think
slavery is right, and ought to be extended, while we think it is wrong,
and ought to be restricted. That, I suppose, is the rub. It certainly is
the only substantial difference between us.”
=446. Misunderstandings and Mistakes.=—While the South believed, as had
so often been claimed by Calhoun and Davis, that it had a right to
secede and that the North had no right to oppose secession with force,
each side was deceived in regard to the strength and real purpose of the
other. The South made the mistake of believing that the Douglas
Democrats would not unite with the Republicans, and the North greatly
underestimated the determination and the readiness for war on the part
of the South. Neither side seems to have more than half believed that
the other side would fight. As the South was far more ready than the
North, it was certain that, in case of war, the South would gain the
first victories. But as the North had far greater resources, it was also
certain that, with equal skill and determination, the North would in the
end be successful. Each side held that its own strength would prevent
the other side from entering upon war. Seward was so optimistic as to
believe that as soon as the North showed its determination, the South
would yield, and war would be “over in ninety days.” If each side had
thoroughly understood the other, probably no war would have occurred.
But, not understanding each other, “one side,” as Lincoln once said,
“would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would
accept war rather than let it perish.”
THE COUNTRY IN 1860–1861.
[Illustration: CYRUS W. FIELD.]
=447. The Sections on the Eve of the Civil War.=—If the South had been
in a condition to reason calmly, the laying of the Atlantic cable,
through the efforts of Cyrus W. Field,[199] might have convinced its
leaders that it was useless to uphold past ideals of government and a
belated institution like slavery in the face of advancing civilization.
The same lesson might have been taught them by the immense growth of the
North and West since 1830. The increase in area, due to the settlement
of the Oregon dispute and to the territory acquired from Mexico by war
and purchase, had helped freedom rather than slavery. Of the 31,443,321
inhabitants of the whole country in 1860, only a little over 12,250,000
resided in the slaveholding states, including Missouri and Delaware, and
of these twelve millions slightly over a third were negroes, who were in
the main slaves. Over 3,500,000 persons lived in border states which did
not join the Confederacy; so that when the crisis came, only about
8,700,000 whites in the South were to be matched against the 19,000,000
whites of the North and West. The advantage on the side of freedom was
not really so great as these figures would make it; for the Southerners
could leave their slaves at work and could flock to the front, while the
Northern people had to keep their farms and factories going as well as
fight. But when all allowances are made, the balance in favor of freedom
was very great. The contrast between the sections is rendered all the
more striking when we observe the great urban growth in the North and
West. New York City in 1860 had about eight hundred thousand
inhabitants; the South contained only two fairly large cities,—New
Orleans and Baltimore. The foreign immigrants, nearly five million of
whom had entered the country since 1830, when immigration practically
began, saw even more clearly than many Americans the differences between
the sections, and settled mainly in the North and West.
=448. Wealth of the Country.=—We have seen that in Jackson’s day the
character of the average American became more energetic, and that the
country entered upon an era of commercial expansion which even the panic
of 1837 could not permanently check. The growth of manufacturing and of
railroads had been enormous, chiefly in the North and West. In 1860 one
billion dollars were invested in manufacturing, six billion five hundred
million in farming. In the latter form of wealth the South, of course,
had its share, since its cotton crops were very valuable. But the cotton
was shipped in northern vessels and was exchanged for products not
manufactured in the South. In the matter of railroads, a great gain had
been made since 1850, twenty of the thirty thousand miles operated in
1860 having been laid within the decade.
=449. Inventions.=—It is almost needless to say that American
inventiveness kept pace with the country’s growth in population and
wealth. Between 1830 and 1860, Cyrus H. McCormick (1809–1884) invented
his reaper, which revolutionized farming; S. F. B. Morse (1791–1872)
made the telegraph an effective means of communication; Charles Goodyear
(1800–1860) succeeded in vulcanizing india rubber; and Elias Howe
(1819–1867) patented his sewing machine. The same epoch was marked by
the growth of express companies, the first use of postage stamps, the
perfection of the daguerreotyping process, the use of anæsthetics, and
the employment of steam fire engines. When we remember further that this
was the era of such great scientists as Asa Gray (1810–1888) the
botanist, J. D. Dana (1813–1895) the mineralogist, Joseph Henry
(1797–1878) the physicist, and Louis Agassiz (1807–1873) the naturalist,
as well as of the great historians, William H. Prescott (1796–1859),
George Bancroft (1800–1891), and John Lothrop Motley (1814–1877), and of
Emerson, Hawthorne, Longfellow, and other writers already mentioned, we
can perceive that the intellectual growth of the nation had kept pace
with its material development. Yet, with the exception of Commodore
Matthew F. Maury (18061—1873),—who won fame for his work in physical
geography, especially of the sea,—and of Edgar Allan Poe, nearly every
one of these scientists and authors was a Northern man. From all points
of view, therefore, the odds were against the South at the beginning of
the great struggle.
* * * * *
REFERENCES.—Rhodes’s _History of the United States from the
Compromise of 1850_ is the most thorough, impartial, and
authoritative of all general works on the subject; the first two
volumes are devoted to the years from 1850 to 1860, and by means
of the full table of contents and the index, the student may
obtain a fair presentation of the causes of the War, without
reading the whole. Schouler’s _United States_, Vol. V., is also
full and valuable. Wilson, _Division and Reunion_, 204-216;
Johnson, _American Politics_, 188-196; Goldwin Smith, _United
States_; Morse, _Abraham Lincoln_ (2 vols. “American
Statesmen”); Tarbell’s _Abraham Lincoln_, Vol. II., 1-150,
contains much interesting material not before published;
Sanborn, _Life and Letters of John Brown_; Stephens, _War
between the States_, Vol. I., probably presents the ablest
Southern view; Pollard, _Lost Cause_; Davis, _The Rise and Fall
of the Confederate Government_, Vol. I.; Greeley, _American
Conflict_, Vol. I.; Grant, _Personal Memoirs_, Vol. I.; Sherman,
_Memoirs_; Nicolay and Hay, _Abraham Lincoln_ (10 vols.);
Johnston, _American Orations_; Garrison, _Life of William Lloyd
Garrison_, Vols. I. and II.; Buchanan, _Buchanan’s
Administration_; Dabney, _Defence of Virginia_; Longstreet,
_From Manassas to Appomattox_; F. Bancroft, _Life of William H.
Seward_ (2 vols.); Lothrop, _William H. Seward_ (“American
Statesmen”); Storey, _Charles Sumner_ (“American Statesmen”); T.
N. Page, _The Old South_; H. A. Wise, _Seven Decades_; Trent,
_W. G. Simms_ (“American Men of Letters”); Trent, _Southern
Statesmen of the Old Régime_; Channing and Hart, _Guide to
American History_.
-----
[188] Born in Maryland, 1777; died, 1864. Graduated from Dickinson
College; studied law and settled in Baltimore; was a Federalist and
later a Jackson Democrat; was Attorney-General of the United States,
1831–1833; appointed Secretary of the Treasury by Jackson, he removed
the government deposits from the bank, but was not confirmed by the
Senate; Chief Justice of the United States from 1836 until his death.
[189] Born, 1811; died, 1896. Was daughter of Rev. Lyman Beecher, and
sister of Henry Ward Beecher; married Professor Calvin E. Stowe in 1836;
resided in Cincinnati, where she had opportunities of acquiring
considerable knowledge of Southern life; was stirred by the Fugitive
Slave Law to write _Uncle Tom’s Cabin_; wrote many other novels and was
until her death an important literary figure.
[190] Minnesota was admitted as a free state in 1858, and Oregon in
1859.
[191] Born in Vermont, 1813; died, 1861. After suffering many hardships
in his youth, removed to Illinois, and began to practice law in 1834;
was attorney-general of the state, 1838; secretary of state for
Illinois, 1840; judge of the Supreme Court, 1841; was in the United
States House of Representatives, 1843–1847; in United States Senate,
1847–1861; was the advocate of “Popular Sovereignty” in the territories,
and gained the appellation of “Little Giant” by the fervor and power of
his advocacy; held joint debates with Lincoln in 1858; was an
unsuccessful candidate for a Presidential nomination in 1852 and 1856,
and for the Presidency in 1860.
[192] Born in Kentucky, February 12, 1809; died in Washington, April 15,
1865. Moved to Indiana with his parents in 1816; to Illinois in 1830;
served as private and captain in Black Hawk War in 1832; failed as a
storekeeper in New Salem, Illinois; studied law and was sent to the
legislature, 1834–1842; was Whig congressman from Springfield district,
1847–1849; came forward as a debater and political speaker between 1850
and 1858; made himself known to the entire nation by his debates with
Douglas in 1858, by his Cooper Institute speech of February, 1860, and
by other speeches; was nominated by Republicans and elected President,
1860; issued Emancipation Proclamation, January 1, 1863; reëlected
President, 1864; shot by John Wilkes Booth, April 14, 1865.
[193] Born in Connecticut, 1800; died, 1859. Early moved to Ohio and
became an earnest and uncompromising abolitionist; went to Kansas in
1855 and took an active part in the troubles that ensued; led in the
“Pottawatomie Massacre” of 1856; returned to the East and matured plans
for an invasion of the South in 1859; made the attack on Harper’s Ferry,
October 16; executed, December 2, 1859.
[194] Born in New Hampshire, 1808; died, 1873. Graduated at Dartmouth,
1826; moved to Cincinnati and practiced law; became a great supporter
and advocate of the anti-slavery movement; was elected by Democrats and
Free Soilers to the United States Senate, 1849; governor of Ohio,
1856–1860; was candidate for nomination for the Presidency, 1860; became
Secretary of the Treasury and performed services of great merit,
1861–1864; was not in perfect accord with Lincoln’s administration, and
his name was urged by his friends for the Presidency in 1864; was
appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1864, and served till
his death.
[195] General Dix is still remembered for his famous order to his
subordinates: “If any man attempts to haul down the American flag, shoot
him on the spot.” With the spirit of this order, General Winfield Scott,
who, old as he was, had been laboring for months to get Buchanan into an
attitude of aggressive resistance, heartily concurred.
[196] Born in Kentucky, June 8, 1808; died, December 6, 1889. Graduated
at West Point, 1828; served in Black Hawk War; resigned, and became a
planter in Mississippi; congressman, 1845–1846; distinguished himself in
the Mexican War; United States senator, 1847–1851 and 1857–1861;
unsuccessful candidate for governorship of Mississippi, 1851; Secretary
of War under Pierce, 1853–1857; resigned his seat in the Senate in
January, 1861; was chosen President of the Confederacy, February 9,
1861; was confined as prisoner at Fortress Monroe, 1865–1867; was
indicted for treason in 1866; was released on bail in the following
year, and was never put on trial.
[197] Born in Georgia, 1812; died, 1883. Graduated at University of
Georgia, 1832; prominent lawyer, speaker and Whig member of Congress
from 1843 to 1859; strongly supported Douglas and opposed secession in
1860; sided with his state and became Vice President of the Confederacy,
1861–1865; often differed from Davis; sought to bring about peace in
1864; was imprisoned in 1865, but was soon released; was congressman
from Georgia, 1875–1882; elected governor of Georgia, 1882; wrote the
important _War between the States_.
[198] Cleveland, _Life of Alexander H. Stephens_, pp. 721-723.
[199] Born in Massachusetts, 1819; died, 1892. Engaged in business in
New York till 1853, when he retired; conceived the idea of a
trans-Atlantic submarine cable, and succeeded in forming the New York,
Newfoundland, and London Telegraph Company; established communication in
1858, but the cable proved worthless in a few weeks; later established
the Atlantic Cable Company, which laid cables in 1865 and 1866, the
latter of which was completely successful; was greatly honored for this
achievement both in America and Europe.
[Illustration: UNITED STATES IN 1861]
[Illustration: UNITED STATES IN 1861
_The heavy line shows the limit of territory held by Confederates._]
[Illustration: ABRAHAM LINCOLN.]
PART VI.
THE CIVIL WAR AND RECONSTRUCTION,
1861–1869.
* * * * *
CHAPTER XXVII.
=THE BEGINNINGS OF THE CIVIL WAR.=
OPENING OF HOSTILITIES.
=450. From the Election to the Inauguration.=—While the South, during
the months between the election and the inauguration of Lincoln, was
setting up its new government and preparing for war, the North could do
nothing. President Buchanan, as we have already seen, scarcely lifted a
finger to prevent the secession of the Southern states. There is even
reason for thinking that he encouraged it,[200] although in the main he
was loyal. Howell Cobb of Georgia, Buchanan’s Secretary of the Treasury,
John B. Floyd of Virginia, Secretary of War, as well as Secretary
Thompson, actively and openly sympathized with the Southern leaders and
gave them constant advice and assistance. Floyd even received Thomas F.
Drayton, the agent of South Carolina, and negotiated with him for the
sale of arms; and W. H. Trescott, the Assistant Secretary of State, was
in constant correspondence with Governor Gist, of South Carolina, in
regard to all plans for secession.[201] This activity at the South gave
great alarm to the North. Lincoln remained at Springfield until it was
time to start for Washington for the inauguration, but he was beset with
demands for an explanation of the policy which he would pursue. Though
he wrote numerous private letters, he positively refused to give out a
word for publication. His letters, since published, show that he never
wavered from his purpose to defend the property of the United States
government in the South. In the course of his journey to Washington, he
made several speeches that showed remarkable firmness, united with a
deep sense of responsibility. Hearing in Philadelphia, from two
independent sources, of a plot to assassinate him in Baltimore, he
reluctantly yielded to the urgent advice of his friends, and secretly
boarded a special train in order to elude possible assassins by passing
through Baltimore in the night.
=451. Selection of the Cabinet, and the Inauguration.=—Lincoln had the
matter of choosing a Cabinet long under consideration, but its
membership was not fully settled till the day before his inauguration.
His chief rivals for the Presidency were given leading positions. The
Secretary of State was W. H. Seward of New York; Salmon P. Chase of Ohio
became Secretary of the Treasury; Simon Cameron of Pennsylvania,
Secretary of War; Gideon P. Welles of Connecticut, Secretary of the
Navy. In his inaugural address, the President spoke with a pathetic
sense of his responsibility, but with great clearness of conviction as
to the nature of his duty. He declared that he had “no purpose directly
or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the
states” where it existed, and that there would be “no bloodshed or
violence unless” it were “forced upon the national authority.” His
purpose he defined by saying, “The power confided to me will be used to
hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the
government and to collect the duties and imposts.” Appealing to his
dissatisfied fellow countrymen, he said, “You have no oath registered in
heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one
to preserve, protect, and defend it.”
[Illustration: FORT SUMTER.]
=452. The Fall of Sumter.=—One after another, the military posts in the
South were taken possession of by the local authorities. At Charleston,
the Federal garrisons of two of the other forts withdrew to Fort Sumter,
in order to defend it. But, even thus reënforced, it was short of
ammunition and provisions. Buchanan, in January, had ordered relief
sent; but as we have seen (§ 442), the _Star of the West_ was fired
upon, and turned back to New York. Lincoln, in accordance with his firm
but conciliatory policy, sent word to Governor Pickens, of South
Carolina, that he had made provision to send supplies to Fort Sumter.
The Governor decided at once to take the fort before the supplies could
arrive, and, under his orders, General Beauregard opened fire upon it
about four o’clock on the morning of the 12th of April. Two days later,
the commander of the fort, Major Anderson, having exhausted food and
ammunition, was obliged to take down his flag and withdraw from his
post. No lives were lost on either side. This action of the South was a
strategic blunder, for it enabled the North to enter upon the war with
an enthusiasm which could otherwise hardly have been secured.
[Illustration: PALMETTO FLAG (CONFEDERATE).]
=453. First Call for Troops.=—The firing upon Sumter sent a thrill of
patriotic determination throughout the North. On the 15th of April,
Lincoln issued a proclamation, declaring that a combination against the
Union had been formed, and calling for an enlistment of seventy-five
thousand men for three months, “in order to suppress said combination
and to cause the laws to be duly executed.” He also called upon all
loyal citizens to aid and facilitate “this effort to maintain the honor,
the integrity, and the existence of our National Union.” The response
was immediate and overwhelming. Douglas, then upon his dying bed,
dictated a letter, declaring that the only course left for patriotic men
was to sustain the Union “against all assailants.” The course of Douglas
unquestionably did much to unite all parties in the North. In every city
and town mass meetings were instantly held and companies and regiments
were formed. Senator Chandler telegraphed: “Michigan will send you fifty
thousand men, if you desire.” Indiana, whose quota was five thousand,
telegraphed that ten thousand were ready. So it was from every quarter
of the North. Men came in such numbers that instead of seventy-five
thousand, the War Department accepted more than ninety-one thousand. In
the South, the people were likewise fired with enthusiasm and drawn
nearer together. There was, at first, an opposition to secession in
Virginia, but reluctance to allow troops to pass over her soil and the
demand that she should furnish her quota _against_ the South, turned the
scale. Four of the border states, as they were then called,—North
Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, and Arkansas,—now passed Ordinances of
Secession. Shortly after Virginia seceded, April 17, the capital of the
Confederacy was transferred from Montgomery to Richmond.
MILITARY AND FINANCIAL STRENGTH OF THE COMBATANTS.
=454. Comparative Numerical Strength.=—As we have seen (§ 447), the
population of the seceded states was a little less than nine millions,
of whom about five and one-half millions were whites; while the
population of the other states was about twenty-two millions. At the
beginning of the war a large proportion of the white adult males in the
South was brought into action through public opinion, and a little
later, a rigid conscription law, including all able-bodied men between
fifteen and fifty, was rigorously enforced. Old men, women, boys, and
slaves were left at home to furnish the necessary supplies. Thus the
South put forth almost its entire strength early in the war, and the
capture of territory and prisoners continually lessened its resources;
while the very opposite was the case with the North. While the war was
going on, the productive industries of the Union states never flagged,
and the population continued to increase so that it was possible to have
a larger army at the end of the war than at the beginning. However, all
figures comparing the armies and the numbers present in individual
battles are somewhat misleading, from the fact that in the Southern army
teamsters and laborers on the supply trains were generally slaves, not
enumerated. Slaves were also employed in the trenches. In the Northern
armies, on the other hand, these forms of service were generally
rendered by enlisted men.
=455. Comparative Industries.=—The South was essentially an
agricultural region, depending for its income chiefly upon its exports
of cotton and tobacco. If a blockade could be stringently enforced, this
source of revenue must necessarily be cut off. But that was not all. The
supplies which the South had been in the habit of importing could not
now be procured except at enormous prices and in very small quantities.
A few facts will show the significance of this condition. In 1860, the
exports of cotton amounted in value to about two hundred millions of
dollars, but before the end of the war, the annual income from that
source was not more than four million dollars. The inducement to run the
blockade may be inferred from the fact that the best cotton could be
bought in Charleston at four or five cents a pound, while in Liverpool,
where the American supply had been cut off, the price per pound was no
less than two dollars and a half. Prospect of profit led to the most
daring risks. Insurance on blockade running vessels rose nearly a
thousand per cent, and the wages of sea captains plying between Nassau
and Southern ports increased from thirty to one thousand pounds sterling
per month. As we shall hereafter see, prices rose enormously in the
South, and the suffering on the part of many became almost intolerable.
This condition of affairs might have been prevented, if the South before
the war had given itself to the development of varied industries. But,
with all the able-bodied men in the field, the sudden establishment of
industrial activity was plainly out of the question. In the North, on
the other hand, the conditions were very different. At the beginning of
the war, a high protective tariff was established, partly to provide an
increased revenue, and partly to encourage the rapid spread of home
industries. The consequence was great industrial activity throughout the
entire period of the war. As the Northern ports were all open,
intercourse with foreign markets was easy, and the rise of prices was
not so great anywhere as to cause considerable inconvenience. In fact,
the North grew steadily in wealth during the war.
=456. Financial Methods in the North.=—The cost of a great war is
always so enormous that all the resources of taxation and credit must be
resorted to. The necessities of the North were peculiarly stringent in
1861, owing to the fact that during Buchanan’s administration the
Treasury was nearly bankrupt (§ 423). As soon as the war began, the
financial pressure was felt throughout the country, and before the end
of 1861, the banks everywhere were obliged to suspend specie payment. A
few months later, Congress authorized an issue of $150,000,000 of paper
currency, and made it legal tender for the payment of all debts. In
1863, the amount of such notes was increased to $450,000,000; and from
the color of the ink used, they came to be known as “greenbacks.” As
they were not redeemable in gold at any specific time, the price of gold
began to rise as soon as the first issue was made, and increased as the
war progressed, until, in 1864, the premium on gold reached its highest
point,—two hundred and eighty-five per cent. Of course, this premium
was not an increase in the value of gold, but a decrease in the value of
paper currency. As the current money became cheap, the prices of
commodities naturally rose. It has been ascertained that the average
increase in the prices of real estate, rents, and goods was about ninety
per cent, while the increase in the price of labor was only about sixty
per cent. Thus it is evident that the men of means profited most, or
suffered least, by the inflation, while the laborer suffered most.
Another source of income was the issue of government bonds at a high
rate of interest. These amounted before the end of the war to
$2,850,000,000. As during the first years of the contest the success of
the North, and consequently the ability of the government to pay,
appeared uncertain, it was difficult to sell the bonds except at a
considerable discount.
=457. National Banks.=—An ingenious method of disposing of a large part
of the bonds was devised. A law was enacted in February, 1863,
authorizing any five persons to organize a National Bank on easy
conditions. Except in very small places, such a bank was required to
have a capital of at least one hundred thousand dollars and to deposit,
with the Treasury at Washington, bonds to the amount of one-third of its
capital. The government would then issue notes to the bank to the amount
of ninety per cent of such deposit, such notes to be used by the bank
for the purposes of circulating currency, and to be redeemable by the
government in greenbacks. The response was at first slow; but in 1864 a
new impulse was given to the movement by an act levying a tax of ten per
cent on the circulation of state banks—a law designed to compel state
banks to become national. By these measures, a safe and abundant
currency was provided. In addition to these devices, a high internal
revenue was levied, an income tax was provided, and tariff duties, as
the war went on, were greatly increased.
=458. Finances in the South.=—No such fertile devices were possible in
the South. Bonds were issued, but, as there was little or no capital
seeking investment, no market at home could be found, and foreign
capitalists would not run great risks till the issue of the war could be
predicted with some confidence. The government then issued notes payable
six months after the close of the war. With the diminishing prospects of
the South, these notes rapidly declined in value, till they became
practically worthless. Then the Confederate Congress authorized the army
to seize provisions and supplies wherever they could find them, and to
offer in payment bonds or notes at prices to be fixed every ninety days.
Under this financial régime, prices rose enormously, and the consequent
suffering of those who did not occupy their own estates or were not in
the army or the service of the government, was well-nigh indescribable.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SEAT OF WAR.
=459. General Features of the War.=—Without some knowledge of the
physical characteristics of the country, it will not be easy to
understand why the war progressed so slowly as it did in the East and so
rapidly in the West. As the South had broken away from the Union, and
the North was trying to bring the seceded states back under national
authority, the North was, necessarily, the attacking party, while the
South had merely to act on the defensive. Though two important efforts
were made by the South to transfer the field of operations to the North,
these were both unsuccessful, and therefore the war, in all its larger
features, was fought in the South. This fact makes it necessary to look
for a moment at the physiographic features of the field of action.
=460. Physical Features in the East.=—The Alleghany Mountains and the
Mississippi River divided the Confederacy into three somewhat distinct
parts. The eastern portion, which lies between the Alleghanies and the
Atlantic, is characterized by a succession of rivers that rise in the
mountains and flow in a southeasterly direction nearly parallel with the
Potomac and James. To advance through Virginia to Richmond, it was
possible for the Union forces to go by water to the mouth of the James
and then ascend along the river, or to cross the Rappahannock, the
Rapidan, the York, and the Chickahominy, besides a large number of
smaller streams which were sometimes swollen to the volume of navigable
rivers. Much of the intervening region, moreover, was swampy, and at
times almost impassable. East of the Alleghanies, the subordinate range
known as the Blue Ridge provides a fertile, intervening valley, through
which the Shenandoah flows northward into the Potomac at Harper’s Ferry.
This Valley of Virginia, however, near the northern end, is subdivided
by a low range of mountains in such a way as to enable an army driven
down one side to retreat up the other. Across the Blue Ridge at Manassas
Gap, a railroad connects the Valley with the eastern portion of Virginia
and makes it possible to transfer troops rapidly from one side to the
other. At Manassas, this railroad crosses an important Southern line
which runs from Washington to Richmond and Lynchburg, and to the far
South. This crossing, therefore, was of the first strategic importance
in the war, and was naturally the first point of collision.
=461. Physical Features of the West.=—West of the Alleghanies the water
courses, in some respects, were of even more importance than in the
East. The Cumberland River, which rises in the mountains of the same
name, flows southwest, and then, turning sharply to the north, empties
into the Ohio some miles above Cairo. The Tennessee flows in the same
general direction, but bends so far south as to reach Alabama and
Mississippi, and then, turning northward and flowing through Tennessee
and Kentucky in a course nearly parallel with the Mississippi, though in
an opposite direction, discharges its waters into the Ohio. As railroads
were few and other roads were poor, these navigable waters were of the
utmost importance to the side that should be able to command them. Both
antagonists recognized this fact, and, therefore, the first contest in
this region was for command of these rivers. Soon after the war began,
the Unionists took Cairo, at the mouth of the Ohio, and the Confederates
constructed Forts Henry and Donelson, on the Tennessee and Cumberland
rivers, at points not far from the Ohio, where the rivers were so near
each other that either fort could easily reënforce the other. In this
way each side hoped to gain command of the rivers for purposes of
transportation. The Mississippi also was strongly fortified by the
Confederates at Memphis, at Island Number 10, at Vicksburg, and at other
points of less importance. West of the Mississippi, the physical
features of the country were of less military consequence.
DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN COMPLICATIONS.
[Illustration: CONFEDERATE FLAG.]
=462. First Bloodshed.=—Among those in the North who had foreseen the
conflict, one of the foremost was Governor John A. Andrew, of
Massachusetts. Inaugurated early in January, 1861, he had set about
preparing for hostilities by organizing the state militia and by
purchasing arms in Europe. Only four days after the call for troops,
therefore, the 6th Massachusetts Regiment was ready to move to
Washington. While passing through Baltimore, the regiment was attacked
by a mob and several men were killed. This was the first bloodshed of
the war. The road through Baltimore was closed, and all trains with men
and supplies were for several months obliged to pass around the city by
way of Annapolis. But this was not the worst. The railroad from
Annapolis to Washington was torn up and every telegraph line from
Washington to the North was cut. Exit from the capital in any direction
was, for a time, made impossible. With the news that Virginia had
seceded, came the rumor that a large Southern force was on the march to
take Washington. General Winfield Scott, then in command as general in
chief of the United States armies, placed barricades about all the
public buildings, and distributed the few guns he had at the various
approaches to the city. There were only twenty-five hundred troops at
his disposal. But officers and men in the departments were brought into
service, and many citizens enlisted. The women and children were ordered
out of town. During all this terrible excitement and anxiety, a
committee from Baltimore appeared before the President and protested
that the soil of Maryland should not be “polluted” by troops designed to
invade the South. Lincoln replied, “We must have troops, and, as they
can neither crawl under Maryland nor fly over it, they must come across
it.” The alarming rumor proved to have no foundation. The South was not
ready for an attack upon the capital.
=463. The Border States.=—The great fears naturally felt with regard to
the secession of other border states besides Virginia were gradually
relieved. This was caused partly by the wise management of Lincoln,
partly by the unexpected enthusiasm throughout the North in responding
to the call for troops, and partly by the firmness of the Union
sympathizers in those states. Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, and Missouri
did not secede; but while these states thus remained in the Union, the
people were divided in their sympathies, some going into one army, and
some into the other. Though Tennessee seceded and joined the
Confederacy, many of her people, especially in the Cumberland Mountains,
were stanch supporters of the Union throughout the war. On the other
hand, in southern Indiana and Illinois there were many sympathizers with
the South, and nothing but the ability and the energy of the governors
of those states and the intense loyalty of the Unionists kept up the
full quota of their troops. In Virginia, while the people in the eastern
part of the state were generally Secessionists, a majority of those west
of the mountains were adherents of the Union. When, therefore, Virginia
withdrew, the people of the western portion voted to break away from the
rest of the state, and on December 31, 1862, Congress, with apparently
more regard to necessity than to the Constitution, admitted the region
to the Union as West Virginia.
=464. Foreign Recognition.=—On May 13, 1861, Great Britain issued a
“Proclamation of Neutrality,” which, in effect, recognized the
Confederates as belligerents, and this example was soon imitated by the
other European states. Thus the Confederates obtained the right to have
war vessels, and to take refuge for repairs and needed supplies in
foreign harbors. The consular agents of the United States reported that
Southern agents were buying arms wherever they could be obtained in
Europe.
=465. Equipment and Further Preparation.=—In the beginning of the war,
though enlistments were rapid, preparations for an advance were
necessarily slow. The Southern ports were declared blockaded, but the
North had not enough ships on hand with which to make the blockade
effective. Coasting vessels of all kinds were rapidly brought into the
service, supplies had to be collected, and troops had to be equipped and
drilled. The Confederates were more rapidly organized, because their
preparations for war had been much more advanced when the war began,
although they, too, were short of arms and powder. Before the North was
ready to move, the Confederacy had formed a strong line across Virginia
from Harper’s Ferry to Norfolk. It had also placed strong fortifications
along the Mississippi River, the Mexican border, and about the Atlantic
ports. A little later the construction of Forts Henry and Donelson, on
the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers, protected the northern frontiers.
Thus the Confederacy was nearly surrounded with a line of defenses.
Early in May, when the Northern troops reached the line of action,
skirmishing began, but no important engagement occurred before July. On
the 4th of July, Congress met in special session. Lincoln, in his
message, after reviewing the situation, said: “This issue embraces more
than the fate of these United States. It presents to the whole family of
man the question whether a constitutional republic or democracy—a
government of the people by the same people—can or cannot maintain its
territorial integrity against its own domestic foes.” Congress at once
authorized the President, at his discretion, to call out five hundred
thousand volunteers, and gave him all the powers necessary to carry on
the war.
MILITARY MOVEMENTS OF 1861.
=466. Movements in West Virginia.=—Early in the summer of 1861, General
George B. McClellan advanced from Ohio into western Virginia, and in
less than a month succeeded in driving the Confederates out of that
mountainous region. A little later, General Robert E. Lee, in command of
an insufficient Confederate force, and in an inclement season, attempted
to recover the ground lost, but he was successfully resisted by General
Rosecrans, and the district remained in the hands of the Union.
[Illustration: GENERAL BEAUREGARD.]
=467. The Battle of Bull Run, or Manassas.=—Largely in consequence of
McClellan’s successes in West Virginia, there was a great popular outcry
in the North for an advance. “On to Richmond!” was the watchword of many
of the influential newspapers. General Scott at length reluctantly
consented to a forward movement. About thirty-five miles south of
Washington, the railroad from the Shenandoah Valley, passing through the
mountains, crosses the road which runs from Richmond to Washington. The
point, therefore, was one of such strategic importance that it enabled
the army holding it to move rapidly to the East or West, as well as to
the North or South. It was here, at Manassas Junction, that the
Confederate force was concentrated under Gen. P. G. T. Beauregard.[202]
The Union army, under General McDowell, on July 21, crossed Bull Run, a
small stream near Manassas, and advanced to an attack. At the beginning
of the battle, McDowell had some success; but, in the afternoon, the
Union army, made up chiefly of raw recruits, was thrown into a panic,
owing to a reënforcement of the Confederates, and fled in great disorder
towards Washington. About eighteen thousand men were engaged on each
side. The Confederates lost about two thousand, while the loss of the
Unionists was nearly three thousand.[203] Both armies were temporarily
disorganized by the battle. On the following day, McClellan was called
from West Virginia and put in command of all the forces from the
mountains to the sea. In November, General Scott was compelled by age to
give up his post, and McClellan succeeded him as general in chief of all
the Union forces. Neither army was yet in condition to make an advance.
=468. Ball’s Bluff.=—The Confederates, however, strengthened their line
in the vicinity of Harper’s Ferry, and in October a Union force of about
two thousand men was defeated at Ball’s Bluff, and its commander, the
brilliant Colonel Baker of Oregon, was killed. Before the end of the
season the Union army was increased by additional enlistments to nearly
two hundred thousand men, and the autumn and winter months were passed
in fortifying the lines, drilling the recruits, and bringing together
supplies.
=469. Lincoln’s Strategic Plans.=—Lincoln said at the very beginning of
the war that four things were essential to ultimate success, and all his
plans were directed accordingly. First, the army must defend Washington,
and, if possible, press on and take Richmond. Second, the border states
must, at all hazards, be prevented from seceding. Third, the Mississippi
River must be opened, in order to give the West communication with the
sea and to cut off the Confederates from western supplies. And fourth,
the blockade must be made as effective as possible, to prevent European
supplies from reaching the South.
[Illustration: GENERAL NATHANIEL LYON.]
=470. The Contest in Missouri.=—In the West special efforts were made
by the Union forces to hold Missouri. Sentiment in the state was
divided. General John C. Frémont (§ 417) was early appointed to the
command of the Western Department. He entered upon his duties July 25,
with headquarters at St. Louis; but great frauds were soon developed in
his department, and he was unable to furnish the necessary supplies to
the army. His department was further discredited by an unauthorized
order freeing the slaves, which President Lincoln promptly rescinded.
But notwithstanding the confusion at headquarters, General Nathaniel
Lyon,[204] one of the most promising of Union officers, conducted
affairs in the field with great energy and skill. He pushed the
Confederates out of the northern and central parts of the state; but
near the southern line, they received reënforcements from Arkansas and
Texas, and advanced under General Price. The forces met, August 10, at
Wilson’s Creek, near Springfield. Price had 10,175 men, with fifteen
guns, while Lyon had 5400, with sixteen guns. Lyon’s left was commanded
by General Franz Sigel,[205] who passed around the right flank of the
enemy and attacked in the rear. Lyon, at the head of the main army, led
the advance with great gallantry, swinging his hat as he went. After
being twice wounded, he still pressed on, but soon fell from a third
wound, which proved mortal. Sigel’s force was cut off and routed. Lyon’s
main army held its ground, but, in the night, the Union force was
obliged to retire to Springfield. The Unionists lost about twelve
hundred, the Confederates about a thousand.[206] A major part of the
Union force now retreated to Raleigh, where they remained for the
winter. Meanwhile, early in September, the “Irish Brigade,” under
Colonel J. A. Mulligan, distinguished itself at Lexington, with about
2780 men, against General Price, with a besieging army of about 18,000
men and sixteen cannon. Though Mulligan and his followers were obliged
finally to surrender, it was not till after three days of most desperate
fighting.
=471. Halleck succeeds Frémont.=—In October, Missouri was visited by
the Secretary of War and the Adjutant General, for the purpose of
investigating the condition of affairs, of which many complaints had
reached Washington. Everything was found to be in dire confusion, owing
to the inability of Frémont to administer successfully so large a field.
General Frémont was consequently superseded by General Henry W. Halleck,
who, before the end of the year, without fighting a battle, gained
possession of the entire state.
INTERNATIONAL DIFFICULTIES.
=472. The Trent Affair.=—Toward the close of the year 1861, an event
occurred which nearly involved the Union in a war with Great Britain. In
November, Captain Wilkes, a United States officer, in command of the
_San Jacinto_, boarded a British mail steamer, _The Trent_, and took
from her James M. Mason of Virginia and John Slidell of Louisiana, who
were bound for Europe as Confederate commissioners. The right to stop
and search the vessels of neutrals in time of war had long been
maintained by Great Britain. The “Right of Search,” as we have seen, had
been one of the causes of the War of 1812. Though often protested
against, it had been generally maintained, but at the close of the
Crimean War the Great Powers of Europe agreed, at the Peace of Paris, in
1856, to abandon it. To this agreement the United States, not being a
member of the Congress, had not been a party, and was, therefore, not
bound by it. The British government, however, insisted that the European
agreement should be binding upon the United States, and immediately
demanded the surrender of Mason and Slidell. Troops and vessels of war
were at once sent over to Canada, and great excitement was the result.
The officials of the United States replied that, although not a party to
the agreement of 1856, their government had always been opposed to the
“Right of Search,” and in accordance with its own principles would give
up the prisoners.
=473. Feeling engendered by the Trent Affair.=—The incident left an
angry feeling in the North toward Great Britain, for it was universally
felt that the British government had shown an unmistakable partiality
for the South. This feeling was further aggravated by the habitual
attitude of that important newspaper, the London _Times_. Its offensive
editorial utterances, which were generally thought to be inspired by
Lord Palmerston, the Prime Minister, were the source of a vast amount of
ill feeling for more than a generation.
=474. Results of the First Year.=—The outcome of the first year in the
field was favorable to the Confederates. The Union side had lost Fort
Sumter, Big Bethel, Bull Run, Ball’s Bluff, Carthage, Wilson’s Creek,
and Belmont. With the exception of some small successes in West
Virginia, there had been disasters in every quarter. To a superficial
observer, therefore, success seemed to favor the South, and the attitude
of England was easily accounted for. But there were other considerations
to be taken into account. The tactful diplomacy of Lincoln and the
irresistible energy of the Union sentiment had saved the states of
Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, and a part of Virginia from
secession, and these results ought, perhaps, to be regarded as more than
equivalent to the Confederate successes in the field. Not less important
were the Union successes in closing the Confederate ports. The blockade
was growing to be so complete as to prevent the exportation of cotton
and tobacco, and thus to cut off the most important source of
Confederate income. Meanwhile, there was great commercial activity
between the Union states and Europe, and the government was easily and
amply supplied with men and money.
* * * * *
For References, see end of Chapter XXV.
-----
[200] Senator Clingman relates an interview with Secretary Thompson, in
which the Secretary described his mission (while still the Secretary of
the Interior) to North Carolina to induce that state to join the other
states in seceding. Thompson described, according to this authority, an
interview with Buchanan, held just before he set out on this mission,
and used the following language: “I told Mr. Buchanan all you said, and
he told me he wished me to go, and hoped I might succeed.” The whole
passage is given in Clingman’s _Writings and Speeches_, pp. 526, 527,
and in Nicolay and Hay’s _Life of Lincoln_, Vol. II., p. 325.
[201] See Letters from the Confederate Archives, given in Nicolay and
Hay’s _Life of Lincoln_, Vol. II., pp. 316-327.
[202] Born in Louisiana, 1818; died, 1893. Graduated at West Point,
1838; United States Engineer till 1861; resigned and entered the army of
the Confederate States; opened fire on Ft. Sumter, April 12, 1861; was
in command at Bull Run, July 21, 1861; succeeded Gen. A. S. Johnston at
Shiloh; defended Charleston from September, 1862, to April, 1864; was
transferred to Lee at Petersburg, May, 1864; tried, in September, 1864,
to arrest the march of Sherman; surrendered with Johnston, April, 1865;
was later connected with the Louisiana State Lottery.
[203] The official returns show that the Union officers and men on the
field numbered 17,676; the Confederate, 18,053. The Union loss was
2,896; the Confederate loss, 1,982. See _Battles and Leaders of the
Civil War_, Vol. I., pp. 195-196.
[204] Born in Connecticut, 1818; died, 1861. Served with distinction in
the Mexican War; supported Free Soil party in Kansas, 1857; was placed
in command of the United States arsenal at St. Louis, 1861; succeeded
General Harney in command of the Department; defeated Confederates at
Boonville and at Dug Spring; was defeated by greatly superior force at
Wilson’s Creek, and killed in the battle, August 10, 1861.
[205] Born in Baden, 1824. General Sigel died in New York in 1902, and
at the time of his death his services for the Union were highly
eulogized.
[206] _Battles and Leaders of the Civil War_, Vol. I., p. 306.
CHAPTER XXVIII.
=THE CAMPAIGNS OF 1862.=
THE WAR IN THE WEST.
[Illustration: EDWIN M. STANTON.]
=475. Secretary Edwin M. Stanton.=—The first very important event of
the year 1862 was the substitution of Edwin M. Stanton[207] for Simon
Cameron, as Secretary of War, January 13. Cameron, who had been a
candidate for the Presidential nomination, had been taken into the
Cabinet under the policy already referred to (§ 451), but the duties
soon proved too severe for his energy and his years. He was appointed
Minister to Russia; and the vacant position was given to Stanton, who,
as a War Democrat, had shown his ability and his spirit as
Attorney-General in Buchanan’s reorganized Cabinet. Stanton at once put
new life into the War Department. He was, at times, exceedingly
disagreeable in his methods, but he was the terror of evil doers; and to
the end of the war his marvelous energy and remarkable administrative
ability made themselves felt in every branch of the service. It is
doubtful if there has been any greater Minister of War in modern times.
=476. Military Organization in the West.=—Activities in the field began
with very vigorous movements in the West. The Confederates, under
General Albert Sidney Johnston (§ 478), had established a strong line in
southern Kentucky, extending from Columbus to Mill Spring. They had also
constructed, as already described (§ 461), two strong forts in
Tennessee, just south of the Kentucky line,—Fort Henry on the Tennessee
River, and Fort Donelson on the Cumberland. The organization of the
Northern army in the West introduced a change in the spring of 1862. The
Department of the Mississippi, which included Missouri, Arkansas, and so
much of Kentucky as was west of the Cumberland River, under Major
General H. W. Halleck, and the Department of the Ohio, which included
the eastern parts of Kentucky and Tennessee, under Major General Don
Carlos Buell, were consolidated on the 11th of March, 1862, into one
department, and placed under Halleck, who thus received command of all
the forces throughout the West, consisting of somewhat more than one
hundred thousand men. Ulysses S. Grant,[208] who began his distinguished
career in this war as colonel, had been advanced to brigadier general in
consequence of a prompt and successful seizure of Cairo, and was now,
though under the direction of Halleck, in command of the middle branch
of the army, while Buell commanded the eastern section.
[Illustration: OPERATIONS IN THE WEST, 1862]
[Illustration: GENERAL ULYSSES S. GRANT.]
=477. First Advances.=—The first advance in Kentucky was made by one of
Buell’s divisions under General George H. Thomas, who, on the 19th of
January, defeated a force of about equal numbers under General
Zollicoffer at Mill Spring and drove it back into Tennessee. Rear
Admiral A. H. Foote, with a fleet of gunboats, in February advanced up
the Tennessee River, and, after a severe engagement, took Fort Henry,
with the commanding general and a part of the garrison as prisoners.
Grant, who arrived with his army at about the same time, marched rapidly
across the country and surrounded Fort Donelson, on the Cumberland.
After making rapid preparations for a siege, he carried the outer works
of the fort by storm, and then refused to accept any terms but
“unconditional surrender.” He took some fifteen thousand prisoners
(February 16), including two generals, and about twenty thousand stand
of arms. This was the first great victory for the North, and the skill
and vigor shown attracted the attention of the whole country. The
Confederate line was in consequence so broken that the troops of the
Confederacy were obliged to draw back into southern Tennessee. The Union
forces soon occupied Nashville, and President Lincoln appointed Andrew
Johnson, a prominent Tennessee Unionist, as military governor. Grant
advanced to Nashville without waiting for orders, or even reporting the
nature of his movement to Halleck. The consequence was a formal
complaint of Halleck to McClellan, who had now taken the place of Scott
as commanding general of all the armies of the United States. McClellan,
in reply, authorized Halleck to “arrest Grant and put C. F. Smith in
command.” Halleck, however, realizing the immense popularity which the
“unconditional surrender” order and the success of Grant had given the
latter in the North, decided not to exercise this authority, but ordered
Grant back to Fort Henry, and placed C. F. Smith in charge of the
expedition up the Tennessee. Grant was offended, and twice asked to be
relieved of further duty in that department. But when at length Grant’s
reports were received, they were so completely satisfactory that Halleck
telegraphed, expressing his confidence, and Grant was satisfied. Grant’s
aversion to sending detailed reports of all his movements was such that
the Department at Washington sent to his headquarters a special agent,
Charles A. Dana, assistant editor of the _New York Tribune_ (afterward
editor of the _Sun_), whose duty it was to send a daily telegraphic
report. Thereafter the government was kept fully informed of Grant’s
movements.
[Illustration: GENERAL ALBERT SIDNEY JOHNSTON.]
=478. Shiloh, or Pittsburg Landing.=—Grant’s army, now reënforced to
about forty thousand men, crossed back to the Tennessee River, and
advanced southward as far as Pittsburg Landing, near the border of
Mississippi. This point and Corinth, not far below it, were of great
strategic importance, because of the facility with which troops and
freight could here be exchanged between the Mississippi and Tennessee
rivers, and because they commanded the Memphis and Charleston Railroad,
which was one of the Confederacy’s chief means of transportation from
the Mississippi River to the Atlantic. To seize and hold these points
was to prevent the transfer of troops and supplies. Buell’s army was
hurried forward to join Grant, but the general in command of the
Confederate force, Albert Sidney Johnston,[209] hastened to strike the
army of Grant before Buell could arrive. Grant’s advance extended a
little west of Pittsburg Landing, where the attack was first made. Early
on the morning of April 6, the Confederates, led by Johnston in person,
attacked with great vigor and drove the Union force back upon the river.
Sherman, who commanded this part of the army, still held to the old
notion that intrenchment in the field made men cowardly, and,
consequently, his force came near being utterly routed. The progress of
the Confederates, however, was stubbornly resisted, not only by the
troops, but by the gunboats, which threw shells over the Union army into
the Confederate ranks. In the afternoon of the first day the
Confederates met with an irreparable loss in the death of their very
able leader, Johnston, who was killed on the field. General Beauregard
succeeded to the command. In the evening Buell arrived with strong
reënforcements, and at the dawn of day on the 7th, Grant advanced to the
attack. The Confederates made a stout resistance, but were finally
driven back and forced to retreat to Corinth. The Unionists lost between
thirteen and fourteen thousand, and the Confederates between ten and
eleven thousand.[210] The general notion prevailed in the North that
this greatest battle that had as yet been fought in America, was saved
only by the arrival of Buell. Grant’s confidence in the outcome, even
after the first day’s repulse, amounted to a calmness that was
interpreted by many as stolid indifference.[211]
[Illustration: GENERAL BRAXTON BRAGG.]
=479. Capture of Corinth and Memphis.=—After the defeat of the
Confederates at Pittsburg Landing, or, as it is more frequently called
in the South, at Shiloh, the Union force pressed on and took possession
of Corinth. In March, a fleet of gunboats, supported by an army under
Major General John Pope, after surmounting many and great difficulties,
succeeded in opening the Mississippi River from Cairo to Memphis. In
June, Memphis was taken, after one of the most remarkable naval
engagements of the war. The river was soon afterward opened as far south
as Vicksburg. The lower Mississippi had been opened by the taking of New
Orleans in April (§ 488).
=480. The Battle of Pea Ridge.=—While Grant had been pushing south in
Kentucky and Tennessee, General S. R. Curtis had also been successful in
the farther West. The Confederates, under General Van Dorn, organized in
the beginning of the year a force of about sixteen thousand, including
thirty-five hundred Indians, for the purpose of recovering Missouri.
General Curtis, supported by General Sigel, advanced across the Arkansas
line with ten thousand five hundred Union troops. The forces met at Pea
Ridge (March 6). The Confederates were defeated; and after that time no
very important battle occurred west of the Mississippi River.
[Illustration: GENERAL W. S. ROSECRANS.]
=481. Bragg’s Raid into Kentucky.=—After the losses of Shiloh and
Corinth, General Beauregard’s impaired health caused him to be
superseded by General Braxton Bragg,[212] a capable commander, who now
determined to break through the Union lines, and, if possible, recover
Tennessee and Kentucky for the Confederacy. Advancing to the eastern
part of Tennessee, early in September, he turned suddenly north in the
hope of marching across Kentucky and taking Louisville; but Buell
advanced along a shorter line and reached Louisville before the
Confederates, thus saving the principal city of the state. After much
maneuvering, an indecisive battle was fought at Perryville, October 8;
but the Confederates were checked. They were obliged to abandon their
attempt to secure a permanent foothold and had to content themselves
with carrying south long trains of supplies. Though Buell’s pursuit was
not vigorous, he drove Bragg out of Kentucky. At the end of the raid,
the Confederates set up defenses at Chattanooga, while the headquarters
of the Union army were at Nashville.
=482. Battle of Murfreesborough, or Stone River.=—After securing his
stores at Chattanooga, Bragg moved northwestward and erected strong
works at Murfreesborough. Major General William S. Rosecrans,[213] who
had now superseded Buell, advanced from Nashville with the purpose of
dislodging his opponent. The armies met in a great battle on Stone
River, a shallow stream which flowed between the armies, near
Murfreesborough. During the first day, December 31, the Unionists were
driven back, but during the second and third days, they recovered their
ground. On the night of January 2, 1863, the Confederates were obliged
to withdraw from the field, but the Unionists were too much crippled to
follow. The battle was a costly one to both sides, the Union loss having
been about thirteen thousand, and the Confederate about ten thousand.
Both armies soon went into winter quarters. The battle left the control
of central Tennessee in the hands of the Unionists.
=483. Results in the West.=—The results of the campaigns in the West
were highly encouraging to the North. The Union forces had kept
possession of Missouri and had got control of the larger part of
Tennessee and of the Mississippi River as far south as Vicksburg. The
Confederates still had the advantage of being strongly intrenched at
Chattanooga, the point in eastern Tennessee through which the railroads
pass from Virginia to the Southwestern states. The armies had fought
with equal bravery, but the balance of success was on the side of the
North.
[Illustration: CONFEDERATE RAM.]
THE WORK OF THE NAVY.
=484. Ironclads.=—In the East, the war was prosecuted, during 1862,
partly by the navy and partly by the army. Before the outbreak of
hostilities, ironclad vessels had played practically no part in naval
warfare anywhere in the world. Experiments in protecting vessels with
iron had, indeed, been made by the British and the French, but without
much success. In the latter part of 1861, however, an event occurred
which effected a complete revolution in the construction of war ships.
The Confederates had secured at Norfolk the abandoned and partly
destroyed frigate _Merrimac_. They decided to cut off the top of the
vessel and build upon it a sort of Mansard roof so heavily plated with
iron and so sloping that it could throw off the heaviest cannon shot.
They also fitted up the ship with an iron prow, or beak, put in powerful
engines, and filled the space within the roof with heavy guns. At about
the same time, Brigadier General A. W. Ellet, an engineer in the Union
army, devised and built in the West a fleet of steam rams of similar
construction, which did great execution at the battle of Memphis.
[Illustration: NORFOLK, HAMPTON ROADS]
=485. First Success of the Merrimac.=—On the 8th of March, 1862, the
_Merrimac_ sailed out from Norfolk into Hampton Roads. She there met a
Union fleet, consisting of five of the largest ships and a number of
smaller vessels. The battle was one-sided, and was soon over. The
_Merrimac_ with its prow sank the _Cumberland_ and then drove the other
vessels ashore and set several of them on fire. The whole fleet would
have been destroyed had not darkness come on. The guns of the wooden
ships made no impression whatever on the _Merrimac_. At night this
destructive Confederate boat withdrew to Norfolk, intending to finish
its work the next morning.
[Illustration: JOHN ERICSSON.]
=486. The Merrimac and the Monitor.=—Fortunately for the North, when
the _Merrimac_ came out on the second day, she was confronted by a craft
still stranger in appearance than herself. In the course of the winter,
John Ericsson,[214] a great Swedish engineer, then in New York, had
constructed a gunboat which he called the _Monitor_. It consisted of the
hull of a vessel with a top as low and flat as a raft. Rising only a few
inches above the water, it was made enormously strong, in order that it
might carry very powerful engines, as well as its very heavy armor of
iron. On its deck was a low, broad iron tower, thick enough to resist
the heaviest shot, and large enough to hold two of the most powerful
guns. This tower, which was said to resemble a cheese box on a raft, was
revolved by machinery within the hull of the vessel. Though the tonnage
of the _Monitor_ was only nine hundred, while that of the _Merrimac_,
owing to her heavy guns, was thirty-five hundred, the advantage was
decidedly with the _Monitor_. When the two vessels came together, they
fought for four hours with the utmost desperation. Then the _Merrimac_
withdrew to Norfolk and soon after was destroyed by the Confederates
themselves. The terror that had been felt in all the seaboard cities at
the end of the first day’s victories of the _Merrimac_ was thus
relieved, and a new era in naval construction began.[215]
=487. Capture of Confederate Ports.=—Elsewhere on the coast, several
important events took place. Commodore Goldsborough and Major General A.
E. Burnside captured Roanoke Island in February, and, a little later,
Fort Pulaski on the Savannah River. Several places in Florida also fell
into Union hands. By these captures, the blockade was made much easier
and more effective.
[Illustration: ADMIRAL D. G. FARRAGUT.]
=488. Capture of New Orleans.=—The great event in the extreme South was
the capture of New Orleans. This city was of much importance to the
Confederacy, for it not only controlled the mouth of the Mississippi
River, but also protected the passage from Texas to the Eastern states.
A naval expedition designed to attempt the capture of the place was
fitted out under Commodore D. G. Farragut,[216] with auxiliary military
forces under Major General B. F. Butler. The expedition set out from
Hampton Roads in February. The troops, some fifteen thousand in number,
landed at Ship Island, and remained there until the fleet opened the
river. The city was protected by Fort Jackson and Fort St. Philip, with
very heavy guns, on opposite sides of the river. From one side to the
other, six massive chains were stretched; and connected with these was a
huge raft of logs, extending from shore to shore and completely closing
the passage. Above the raft was a fleet of thirteen Confederate gunboats
and an ironclad floating battery. There were also several fire rafts,
designed to burn the Union ships in case they forced a passage. Farragut
bombarded the forts for a week without much effect, and then determined
to force his way through the obstructions. One dark night several of the
gunboats ran up to the raft and succeeded in cutting the chains so as to
open a passage. A very desperate combat ensued. Farragut pushed forward
with fourteen vessels, protected with chains and sand bags against the
enemy’s fire. The movement of the ships was made plain by bonfires
lighted along the shore. The cannonading from the works and the opposing
ships was terrific; but the Confederate fleet was finally destroyed and
Farragut found himself above the forts. The city was now at his mercy,
and it surrendered on April 25.
=489. General Butler in New Orleans.=—General Benjamin F. Butler took
command of New Orleans as military governor, and Farragut’s fleet passed
on and soon opened the river to the vicinity of Vicksburg. The war
governor with great difficulty wrought order out of chaos by a policy
that was much criticised for its severity. One of the citizens defiantly
pulled down the American flag, whereupon the general, after the offender
had been duly convicted of the act, ordered him to be hanged. In other
ways, he made it evident that the authority of the United States was not
to be trifled with; but some of his orders naturally gave much offense
to the people of the South. His services to the city from the point of
view of sanitation are, however, generally acknowledged to have been
very noteworthy.
THE WAR IN THE EAST.
[Illustration: GENERAL GEORGE B. MCCLELLAN.]
=490. McClellan and the Army of the Potomac.=—In the East, the
campaigns of 1862 were far less successful for the Union than were those
in the West. McClellan,[217] whose successes in West Virginia had
brought him rapidly forward, succeeded Scott, in November, 1861, as
general in chief of all the armies. While, during the winter, he was
successfully organizing the forces of the East, his direction of the
Western armies was confusing and unsatisfactory. For this reason, and
also because of his attitude toward the President, which seemed to be
characterized by insubordination, his authority was limited to the Army
of the Potomac. The number of parallel rivers and the swampy nature of
much of the ground between Washington and Richmond, as already described
(§ 460), gave excellent opportunities for defensive warfare, but made an
offensive campaign, especially in the vicinity of Richmond, exceedingly
difficult. The Federal government was in favor of a direct advance, such
as was afterwards made by Grant; but McClellan strongly recommended a
transfer of his army to the Peninsula between the York and the James
rivers, and an advance upon Richmond from the southeast. Lincoln very
reluctantly yielded to this plan, which had the disadvantage of
separating McClellan from the forces that were to protect Washington.
=491. Unfortunate Division of Forces.=—Unfortunately, also, this
arrangement resulted in the Union’s having in the field in the East four
separate armies, under independent commanders: that under McClellan in
the Peninsula; that under McDowell for the immediate protection of
Washington; that under Banks in the Shenandoah Valley, to prevent the
Confederates from crossing the Potomac; and that under Frémont in the
passes leading to West Virginia. By reason of the ease with which the
Confederates could move on interior lines from one point to another, it
was possible to strike either of the Union armies with a large
Confederate force before a Federal combination could be formed. Hence,
though the Confederates were really much inferior in numbers, they were
generally able, in the battles that ensued, to attack with a superior
force. The Confederates had the further advantage of being in their own
country, where every movement of the Federals was easily ascertained. In
the early spring, the Union force numbered about two hundred thousand,
while the Confederates had scarcely one hundred thousand; but the
latter, by the conscription act of April 15, increased their forces
considerably.
[Illustration: GENERAL JOSEPH E. JOHNSTON.]
=492. McClellan’s Peninsula Campaign.=—McClellan, with an army one
hundred thousand strong, reached the lower Peninsula, between the York
and the James, early in March. Here he found himself confronted by
General Joseph E. Johnston[218] at Yorktown, and later at Williamsburg.
Johnston’s force was less than a third of McClellan’s, yet McClellan
decided not to attack, but to employ an engineer’s slow methods of
siege. If a resolute attack had been made, Johnston would probably have
been defeated, and McClellan would have been free to advance up the
James. Johnston watched his adversary closely, well knowing that when
McClellan’s siege works were ready they could not be resisted. Meanwhile
the Confederate force was constantly increasing, and a precious month
was gained for drilling their new recruits. On May 3, three days before
McClellan was to attack, the Confederates evacuated Yorktown. McClellan
ordered Hooker to pursue. Overtaking Johnston at Williamsburg, Hooker
was repulsed, after which Johnston retreated rapidly towards Richmond.
McClellan followed with such slowness that fourteen days were consumed
in marching less than fifty miles. During the whole of these two months,
he enormously overestimated the force by which he was confronted and
continually asked for reënforcements. On the 17th of May, Lincoln
ordered McDowell to join McClellan, but the order was not carried out,
for reasons that will now be given.
[Illustration: STONEWALL JACKSON.]
=493. Stonewall Jackson’s Movements.=—The slowness of McClellan’s
advance up the Peninsula not only relieved the Confederate government of
any fear for the safety of its capital, Richmond, but also showed that
General Thomas J. Jackson’s corps could safely be spared for operations
against the Federals in the North. In order to defeat the larger forces
of McDowell, Banks, and Frémont, Jackson[219] decided first to strike
the central army of the Union troops, and then to destroy the two wings
in turn before they could unite. Advancing with Napoleonic rapidity from
Staunton, he fell upon Banks near Winchester, Virginia, and not only
routed him, May 25, but drove him across the Potomac into Maryland. Then
retracing his steps, he turned his face westward, and in a similar
manner overwhelmed the army of Frémont at Cross Keys, June 8. Meanwhile,
General Shields of McDowell’s army, who, with a force about the size of
Jackson’s, had crossed the Blue Ridge in order to assist Frémont, found,
on his arrival in the Valley, that Frémont’s army had been broken up and
practically dispersed. Jackson had no difficulty in defeating Shields,
at Port Republic, as he had defeated the others. Thus, in thirty-five
days, Jackson’s army had marched two hundred and forty-five miles, had
fought three important battles, besides two minor ones, winning them
all, and had practically destroyed three Union armies. He had also kept
forty thousand men under McDowell from joining McClellan. Leaving a
portion of his troops to keep up an appearance of activity, he now
turned swiftly to the south with the major part of his force, and within
a week was ready to coöperate with Lee against McClellan. His movements
had been so rapid and mysterious that his departure was not detected at
Washington, and McDowell was needlessly kept in his place for the
defense of the capital.
=494. McClellan’s Slow Advance.=—While Jackson was causing havoc near
Washington, McClellan was slowly making his way toward Richmond. On the
11th of May, he learned that the Confederates had evacuated Norfolk and
destroyed the ironclad _Merrimac_, thus leaving the James open for the
Federal fleet. The _Monitor_, with its attending vessels, came up the
James River, and advanced as far as Drury’s Bluff, almost within gunshot
of Richmond. Had McClellan pushed rapidly on, with the help of the fleet
he could, in the opinion of many military critics, have taken the city.
Richmond was thrown into consternation. But McClellan’s movements
continued to be so incredibly slow that all fear was soon dispelled.
Instead of keeping along the James, as he should have done as soon as he
learned of the movements of the _Monitor_, he divided his army, putting
part of his forces north of the Chickahominy and part south of it. The
bridges were greatly weakened by floods, and the two divisions of the
army, thus separated, were in serious danger of not being able to
coöperate in case they should be attacked.
=495. Confederate Attacks.=—McClellan’s headquarters were at Gaines’s
Mill on the north side. Johnston, on May 31, decided to attack the corps
that confronted him at Fair Oaks, or Seven Pines, on the south. The
beginning of the battle was favorable to the Confederates, and the
Federals were saved from complete rout only by the opportune arrival of
Sumner’s corps, which came over “swaying and tossing bridges” from the
north. But the serious wounding of Johnston and the arrival of Sumner
turned the tide, and at night the Unionists had the advantage.[220]
Johnston, on account of his wound, was obliged to retire from the
command. In the morning, a new bridge constructed in the night enabled
reënforcements to be transferred from the north side; but McClellan, who
arrived on the field only late in the day, instead of ordering an
immediate pursuit, expressed himself as satisfied and recalled his army
to the ground it had occupied before the battle. A Federal corps at one
time was within four miles of Richmond, and it is probable that, if a
prompt advance had taken place, like that of Grant on the second day at
Shiloh (§ 478), the city would have fallen, for the fortifications which
later made Richmond impregnable from this direction had not yet been
constructed.
[Illustration: GENERAL R. E. LEE.]
=496. General Robert E. Lee.=[221]—General Lee, who up to this time was
Davis’s chief of staff, now succeeded Johnston as general in command. He
immediately gathered the reins into his hands, and quickly showed that
genius for organization and action for which he soon became so
celebrated. Directing Longstreet to be prepared for an attack at any
moment on his right, he devoted the major part of his energies to the
construction of works which should make his lines impregnable. Though
McClellan’s force was nearly twice that of Lee, the industrious
Confederates were not interfered with. At length, near the last of June,
Lee completed arrangements for an offensive movement. As Jackson had now
finished his destructive work in the vicinity of Washington, Lee ordered
him to move rapidly to the south, so as to be ready for an attack on
McClellan’s flank and rear. The united forces of Lee and Jackson,
amounting to fifty-five thousand, were now ready to fall upon the
Federals north of the Chickahominy, just as McClellan, with the larger
part of his force, was preparing to advance south of it.
=497. The First of the Seven Days’ Battles.=—The arrival of Jackson was
half a day later than had been expected, and consequently the first
Confederate attack was repulsed. But the next day, June 27, with Lee in
command, the Confederates, fifty-five thousand strong, led by Jackson,
Longstreet, D. H. Hill, and A. P. Hill, at Gaines’s Mill assaulted the
Federals, thirty-one thousand strong, under the command of General Fitz
John Porter. A stubborn and magnificent resistance was made, but it was
only partially successful. Porter, however, with the help of
reënforcements from Sumner, was able to withdraw in good order to the
south side of the river. While the battle on the north side of the
Chickahominy was going on, there were only about twenty-five thousand
Confederates on the south side, under Magruder, between Richmond and the
seventy thousand under McClellan. Again, however, no attempt was made to
take the capital.
=498. McClellan’s Change of Base.=—McClellan believed that he was
confronted by about one hundred and eighty thousand men, and for safety
determined to change his base of supplies and transfer his army to the
James River. In this move he completely deceived Lee, and, after
destroying a large part of his stores, brought his army together in an
orderly retreat. The Confederates pursued, and severe battles took place
at Savage’s Station, Frayser’s Farm, and Glendale. The attacks of the
Confederates were, however, repulsed. Finally, Lee, in opposition to the
advice of his generals, determined on a desperate assault upon Malvern
Hill, where McClellan was very strongly posted. The Confederates were
defeated with great slaughter, July 1.[222] Then McClellan, who had won
the majority of the battles, but had lost the campaign, withdrew his
army to Harrison’s Landing on the James River.
PUBLIC FEELING IN THE NORTH AND GREAT BRITAIN.
=499. Influence of McClellan’s Defeat.=—McClellan’s defeat greatly
depressed the North and cheered the South; but Lincoln showed his spirit
by issuing a circular letter to the governors of the loyal states, in
which he declared that his purpose was to fight the war through to the
restoration of the Union, and expressed the belief that the cause would
best be promoted if a call for new troops were first suggested by the
governors. The governors accordingly, on July 2, in a circular letter,
asked the President to call for “men enough to speedily crush the
rebellion.” Lincoln called for three hundred thousand volunteers, and so
hearty was the response, that the number furished was over four hundred
and twenty-one thousand.
=500. Attitude of Congress.=—Congress, also, showed that there could be
no thought of abandoning the contest, but, on the contrary, promptly
authorized the President to take possession of all the railroads and
telegraph lines whenever the public service should seem to require it.
Faith in the future was furthermore proved by the enactment of many laws
of a far-reaching nature. Besides other important measures, Congress
provided for the construction of a railroad to the Pacific Ocean,
established the Department of Agriculture, and voted the “Morrill
Grant,” which gave to each state as many times thirty thousand acres of
land as it had members of Congress, for the support of colleges in which
agriculture and the mechanical arts should be especially taught. The
Morrill Act was the foundation of most of the agricultural colleges and
many of the state universities in the country, and thus was of great
educational importance.
=501. The Question of Slavery.=—In the course of the summer there was a
general demand on the part of radical Republicans that, either by act of
Congress or by proclamation of the President, slavery should be
abolished. Lincoln held the opinion that slavery could not be interfered
with by Congress, but only by an amendment of the Constitution or as a
war measure by the President, as commander in chief of the army. Frémont
had, as we have seen (§ 470), declared the slaves free in Missouri, and
Hunter had done the same in South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida; but
the President had promptly annulled both these orders, with the
declaration that he could not allow any general to free the slaves and
throw the responsibility of the act upon the President. Lincoln’s course
provoked much opposition on the part of radical opponents of slavery,
and their dissatisfaction was strongly expressed, August 20, in an
editorial of Horace Greeley’s in the _Tribune_, entitled “The Prayer of
Twenty Millions.” Lincoln’s clear and pungent answer[223] served to
satisfy public opinion, but there is now evidence that he was thinking
seriously of the matter of emancipation. On the 13th of July, he had
said to Seward and Welles that “something must be done in the line of a
new policy,” that he had “about come to the conclusion that it was a
military necessity, absolutely essential for the salvation of the
nation, that we must free the slaves, or be . . . ourselves subdued.”
Following this line of thought, on the 22d of August, he surprised all
the members of his Cabinet, excepting Seward and Welles, by presenting a
proclamation which he proposed to issue. The proposal met with general
favor, but Seward questioned the expediency of issuing it at that
juncture. In view of recent reverses, he thought it would be regarded as
“our last shriek on the retreat.” Seward’s objection struck the
President with force, and he put the proclamation aside to await a
victory.
=502. Dangers from Great Britain.=—The ill feeling of Great Britain,
which showed itself at the beginning of the war, and was intensified by
the _Trent_ affair, in November, 1861, was still further increased by
the reverses of McClellan. It was apparent that a majority of the
British upper and middle classes favored the South, that leading
statesmen regarded the defeat of the Union cause as inevitable, and that
the most delicate tact of diplomacy would be needed to prevent a formal
recognition of the Confederacy. In March, 1862, the _Florida_, a vessel
built and equipped for service with the Confederates, sailed from
Liverpool. Though seized at Nassau, she was acquitted by what the
British Chief Justice afterward called “a miscarriage of justice,” and
set free. In June attention was called to a far more serious matter. The
American Minister at London, Charles Francis Adams, and Mr. Dudley, the
American Consul at Liverpool, became aware that another war steamer, far
more powerful than the _Florida_, was being fitted out for the
Confederate service. Adams at once called the attention of Lord Russell,
the British Minister for Foreign Affairs, to the fact, and asked that
the ship be detained, unless it should be found, on investigation, that
its purpose was not hostile to the United States. The British government
was bound by international usage either to arrest the vessel or make the
investigation requested. They undertook the latter course, but the
process was so slow, and the work on the ship was so rapid, that just
before an arrest was to be made, the vessel escaped and put to sea. This
was the famous _Alabama_, which, with the _Florida_ and the _Georgia_,
very nearly cleared the ocean of American commerce.
THE WAR IN THE EAST CONTINUED.
[Illustration: MAJOR GENERAL H. W. HALLECK.
[By courtesy of G. P. Putnam’s Sons.]]
=503. Pope and Halleck.=—Nearly a month before the end of McClellan’s
Peninsula campaign, the President summoned General John Pope from the
West, where he had been successful as commander of the Army of the
Mississippi. The remnants of the forces of McDowell, Banks, and Frémont
were consolidated by Pope into a new organization, known as the Army of
Virginia, and pushed forward to the Rapidan River. McClellan, on
reaching Harrison’s Landing (§ 498), had written the President that his
“army had been saved,” but that it was completely exhausted, and needed
a reënforcement of one hundred thousand men. This surprising statement,
prompted by McClellan’s standing belief that Lee’s forces greatly
outnumbered the Federal army, induced Lincoln to visit the camp at once.
After a long conference with McClellan, Lincoln decided, on July 11, to
appoint Major General Henry W. Halleck[224] general in chief of all the
armies of the United States. Halleck had commended himself to the
country by successfully directing affairs in the West. Lee, anticipating
the course of Halleck, whom he had formerly known well, immediately
detached Jackson from his army before Richmond, and sent him to confront
Pope. Halleck visited McClellan on July 24, and, immediately afterward,
in order ultimately to reënforce Pope,[225] ordered that the Army of the
Potomac be withdrawn, and be transferred by way of Fortress Monroe to
the Potomac near Fredericksburg. The McClellan campaign was thus
admitted to have been a failure. Lee, now freed from danger in the
vicinity of Richmond, hastened to reënforce Jackson by sending to the
Rapidan Longstreet’s corps, which arrived on the 15th of August. A
little later, Lee followed and took command of the entire force.
[Illustration: GENERAL JOHN POPE.
[By courtesy of G. P. Putnam’s Sons.]]
=504. The Second Battle of Bull Run, or Manassas.=—In the last week of
August, Lee sent Jackson and Longstreet in succession around Pope’s
right flank, interposing their forces between him and Washington. Before
any of McClellan’s army, except Fitz John Porter’s corps, had arrived,
the forces of Lee and Pope fought the second battle of Manassas, or Bull
Run, on the 29th and 30th of August. In view of the position of the
forces, it is not strange that the Union army, numbering about sixty
thousand men, was overwhelmingly defeated by the Confederate force of
about fifty thousand. The Union loss was more than fourteen thousand,
while that of the Confederates was less than ten thousand. The issue of
the battle was, at the time, largely attributed to the delay of
McClellan’s force in returning from the James River, and especially to
the failure of General Fitz John Porter’s corps[226] to render the
proper assistance, after it had arrived.
=505. Battle of Antietam, or Sharpsburg.=—Lee, instead of making a
direct attack on Washington, decided to cross the Potomac for an
invasion of Maryland and the North. His chief purpose, as he announced
in a proclamation, was to arouse the Confederate sentiment in Maryland
and unite the state with the Confederacy. Crossing the river near
Harper’s Ferry, he took Frederick City and pushed forward toward
Pennsylvania. But no signs of a sympathetic rising of the people
encouraged him. He was surprised to find that even farmers whom he
supposed to be Southern sympathizers would not sell their produce for
Confederate money. As soon as Lee saw that he was not to get supplies in
Maryland, he sent Stonewall Jackson back to take Harper’s Ferry and thus
open communications for supplies with the rich Shenandoah Valley. The
heights above Harper’s Ferry had been neglected by the Federals, and
Jackson easily took the place, with twelve thousand five hundred
prisoners. McClellan, who on the 2d of September, had arrived in
Georgetown with the major part of his army, after a long conference with
the President in Washington, was directed to resume command, not only of
his own forces, but also of the Army of Virginia. By spasmodic
promptness of movement, and encouraged by an accidental discovery of
Lee’s orders disclosing his whole plan of campaign, the Union commander
was able to advance so rapidly as to throw his army in front of Lee.
McClellan was jubilant, and had confident hope of destroying or
capturing Lee’s army. But his later movements were so dilatory that
Jackson returned from Harper’s Ferry before the battle. The two armies
first came in contact in the vicinity of South Mountain. The preliminary
conflict was decidedly in McClellan’s favor. Then occurred the desperate
battle of Sharpsburg, or Antietam, on the 17th of September. The Union
army was the larger of the two, but the number of the forces engaged
cannot be confidently estimated. The tactics of McClellan on the field
have been regarded by military critics as very faulty, while Lee is
thought to have handled his troops with great skill. It was the most
desperate and bloody single day’s battle of the war. The final advantage
was with the Federals, though the victory was not by any means decisive.
The losses of McClellan were more than thirteen thousand, and Lee’s more
than eleven thousand.[227] McClellan had lost another great opportunity;
but Lee’s advance was checked. He was so weakened that he was compelled
to withdraw to Virginia, and his movement as a whole was a failure. At
this time, when a rapid pursuit might have broken up Lee’s army, which,
according to Longstreet, was so crippled that ten thousand fresh troops
could have destroyed it, McClellan had about twenty thousand troops in
reserve. The latter, mainly in consequence of his excessive caution and
lack of promptitude, was soon superseded by General A. E. Burnside.[228]
[Illustration: GENERAL A. E. BURNSIDE.]
=506. Burnside’s Disastrous Campaign.=—Burnside hastily brought
together all the Union forces in north Virginia for the purpose of a
direct advance on Richmond. With an army which, early in December,
numbered about one hundred and thirteen thousand men, he crossed the
Rappahannock at Fredericksburg; but Lee and Jackson had reached the
southern bank before him, and had posted their forces advantageously on
the high grounds back of the town. Burnside, having arranged his army in
three divisions, under Franklin, Hooker, and Sumner, crossed the river
on December 13, and had the temerity to attempt to carry the works by
storm. The result was disastrous. The Union army was pushed back in
confusion upon the river, and might have been annihilated if Lee had
used his advantage. As it was, Burnside safely withdrew his shattered
forces to the north side of the river. The Union loss was over twelve
thousand, while the Confederates lost considerably less than six
thousand.[229] General Joseph E. Hooker soon superseded Burnside, and
the Union army went into winter quarters. Lincoln was especially
depressed by the result, as he had hoped for a victory which would
counteract the hostility of Great Britain. The contrary effect was
indicated by the _London Times_, which referred to the battle as “a
memorable day to the historian of the Decline and Fall of the American
Republic.” Throughout the North, the following days were days of
darkness and gloom. Stocks declined, and troops volunteered more slowly
than ever before.
DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN EFFECTS OF THE CAMPAIGNS OF 1862.
=507. Military Results of the Year.=—Thus the events of the year,
notwithstanding great losses on both sides, had not essentially changed
the situation. While no territory of importance had been lost, no
considerable gain had been secured. McClellan, McDowell, Banks, Frémont,
Pope, and Burnside had all proved unable to cope successfully with their
opponents, and had all been relieved. Up to the end of 1862, the
military successes of the Union troops had all been in the West and the
great losses had all been in the East. The military history of the year
had made it evident to President Lincoln and to Congress that every
resource of the North must at once be brought to bear upon the conflict
in order to insure success. The commander capable of holding his own
against Lee had not yet appeared. It was to require another year to
reveal him. Meanwhile, the necessities of the situation led to the
emancipation of the slaves, the levy of new taxes, and the conscription
of troops.
=508. Emancipation of Slaves.=—In March, 1862, slavery had been
abolished in the territories by Act of Congress, and in April,
emancipation had taken place in the District of Columbia. In the same
year, Lincoln had urged the governors of the border states to adopt a
proposition for compensation to such of the border states as might
abolish slavery. The failure of the Peninsula campaign and the campaign
in the Shenandoah Valley, and the defeat at Manassas, convinced the
President that emancipation was justifiable as a war measure, and should
be resorted to as soon as a victory could be secured. Accordingly,
immediately after the battle of Antietam, he issued a proclamation,
declaring that in such slaveholding states as should not have returned
to their allegiance to the United States on January 1, 1863, all slaves
would, on that day, be declared free. As none of the seceding states
returned to its allegiance, the Proclamation of Emancipation was issued
on the 1st of the following January, and thereafter, all negroes in
these states were regarded by the Union army as free men.
=509. Influence of Emancipation on the War.=—The effect of the
Emancipation Proclamation was not quite what was anticipated. Contrary
to general expectation in the North, the negroes showed remarkable
faithfulness in remaining with their old masters. They were very
generally employed in the South in caring for the plantations, and
sometimes were used for work on fortifications. It was only in recovered
territory that their relations were much changed. Before the end of the
war, about one hundred thousand of them were enlisted in the Union army,
and they fought with great bravery. As the South refused to recognize
them as soldiers, they could not be exchanged when taken prisoners. The
embarrassment which followed had much to do with the entire cessation of
exchanges in the latter part of the war. In consequence of this
cessation, prisons were overcrowded and the sufferings of prisoners
increased.
=510. Effect of Emancipation upon Europe.=—In Great Britain, public
opinion was very slow to respond to the proclamation of freedom. The
fact that their supply of cotton was cut off by the more complete
blockade of the Southern ports caused great suffering on the part of the
British manufacturing population. While the laboring classes were
generally in sympathy with the North, the owners of the factories and
the wealthy classes, led by Palmerston, the Prime Minister, and Russell,
the Foreign Secretary, were in favor of the South. Many, not realizing
that it was a war for national integrity, regarded it as a war for
liberty on the part of the South, and for conquest on the part of the
North.
=511. Change of British Policy.=—About the middle of October, 1862, the
danger that Great Britain might recognize the Southern Confederacy was
averted. On the 7th of October, at a banquet at Newcastle, Gladstone,
then Chancellor of the Exchequer declared, “Jefferson Davis and other
leaders of the South have made an army; they are making, it appears, a
navy; and they have made, which is more important than either, a
nation.” When the applause which followed this utterance had subsided,
he continued, “We may anticipate, with certainty, the success of the
Southern states so far as their separation from the North is concerned.”
This speech, of which these sentences were the keynote, created a great
sensation, and was immediately interpreted as a purpose on the part of
the government to recognize the Confederacy. The American Minister,
seeing clearly that the drift was unmistakably toward recognition, wrote
to his government for instructions in such a dire contingency. Then
President Lincoln sent a masterly letter which changed the whole
situation. His instructions to Mr. Adams in case the British Ministry
should approach him, directly or indirectly, on any matter of our
internal affairs, were as follows: “You will answer that you are
forbidden to debate, to hear, or in any way receive, entertain, or
transmit any communication of the kind. If the British government,
either alone, or in combination with any other government, should
acknowledge the insurgents, you will immediately suspend the exercise of
your functions, and give notice of that suspension to Earl Russell, and
to this department.” The letter also contained these resolute words: “We
meet and confront the danger of a war with Great Britain. We have
approached the contemplation of that crisis with a caution which great
reluctance has inspired. But I trust that you will also have perceived
that the crisis has not appalled us.” Adams hesitated to present this
letter to Earl Russell, but made its contents known to Russell’s friend,
William E. Forster, and gave his consent that Forster should in turn
make them known to Russell. It was probably at this juncture that the
Queen, if the “credible report” is true, said to Russell, “My lord, no
step must be taken which will involve us in war with the United States.”
On October 23, Russell informed Adams that the policy of neutrality was
not to be changed.
=512. Suspension of Habeas Corpus.=—In the summer of 1862, the Northern
opponents of the war took every advantage of the military disasters to
denounce the course of the government, to discourage enlistments, to
demand a cessation of hostilities, and, in many ingenious ways, to
thwart the success of the Union cause. After the disasters in the
Peninsula and at Manassas, the clamors were so great and the
difficulties of conviction for treason so many that, on the 24th of
September, President Lincoln issued an order suspending the writ of
_habeas corpus_ throughout the country. This act was of doubtful
constitutionality, and shows, better than any other one thing, the
almost desperate straits into which the government was driven. The
suspension of the writ enabled the military authorities to seize and
imprison without trial any persons who might be accused of treasonable
acts, or even of disloyal speech. Large numbers were arrested and thrown
into prison.[230]
=513. The Elections in 1862.=—The disasters in the field and the
suspension of the writ of _habeas corpus_ had a marked effect on the
fall elections. In every one of the Northern states the Republican
majority was greatly reduced, and in six of them[231] that had cast
their votes for Lincoln in 1860, the Democrats were victorious. The
House of Representatives barely escaped being Democratic. It was almost
a vote of “want of confidence” in the President. An analysis of the vote
showed that many of the people regarded the Emancipation Proclamation as
a surrender of Lincoln to the radical Republicans. It seems certain that
more votes were lost than gained in consequence of the Proclamation. But
the President, though disappointed, never for a moment swerved from his
purpose, as his message to Congress in December, 1862, plainly showed.
* * * * *
REFERENCES.—Grant, _Memoirs_, Vol. I., 242-284. Rhodes,
_History_, Vol. III., 404-639, for the period from the
appointment of Lee to the capture of New Orleans; the same, Vol.
IV., from the beginning of McClellan’s campaign at Yorktown till
Lincoln’s reëlection, is at all points full, painstaking, and
valuable. Schouler’s _History of the United States_, Vol. VI.,
covers the whole period and is valuable on all points of the
Civil War. Allan, _Army of Northern Virginia; Battles and
Leaders of the Civil War_, Vol. I., 388-443, 611-692, Vol. II.,
135, 189-319; Dodge, _Bird’s-Eye View of Our Civil War_, chaps.
vi., x.–xiii.; Dabney, _Life of Stonewall Jackson_; Maclay,
_History of the United States Navy_, Vol. II., 282-324, for
_Monitor_ and _Merrimac_, and 364-497, for the capture of New
Orleans; _Old South Leaflets_, III. No. 3, for contest of
_Monitor_ and _Merrimac_. The biographies of Lincoln by Tarbell
and by Nicolay and Hay may be constantly consulted with profit.
-----
[207] Born in Ohio, 1814; died, 1869. Built up an important business as
a lawyer in Pennsylvania and Ohio before the war; became
Attorney-General in Buchanan’s Cabinet in 1860; succeeded Cameron in
Lincoln’s Cabinet, 1862; ruled his Department with great vigor; had
noteworthy controversies with McClellan and Sherman; strenuously opposed
Johnson’s reconstruction policy; was nominated by Grant for Justice of
the Supreme Court, but died before taking his seat.
[208] Born in Ohio, 1822; died, 1885. Graduated at West Point, 1843;
fought gallantly in the Mexican War; resigned in 1854, and engaged in
business with indifferent success till 1861; was appointed colonel, and
given command at Cairo in 1861; took Fort Donelson, thus gaining the
first brilliant victory for the Union arms, February, 1862; defeated
Confederates at Pittsburg Landing, April, 1862; took Corinth and
surrounding region in the summer of 1862; opened the Mississippi River
by capture of Vicksburg, July 4, 1863; was placed in command of Western
armies, September, 1863: took Chattanooga in November, 1863; succeeded
Halleck in command of all the armies in the spring of 1864; fought a
series of great battles against Lee, in Virginia; took Petersburg and
Richmond and compelled surrender of Lee’s army, April 9, 1865; was
unanimously nominated for President in 1868; served two terms; traveled
around the world and was everywhere received with the greatest honor;
wrote his _Personal Memoirs_ with remarkable skill when suffering
intensely from the disease which caused his death.
[209] Born in Kentucky, 1803; died, 1862. Graduated at West Point, 1826;
served in Black Hawk War, in Texas before annexation, and in the Mexican
War; was paymaster and colonel in the United States army; in charge of
the Department of the Pacific when the Civil War broke out; resigned,
and was appointed general in the Confederate service and intrusted with
the command in the West; concentrated his forces at Corinth, and planned
a surprise for Grant at Shiloh; fought a desperate battle, but lost his
life near the close of the first day’s conflict, while leading a charge.
[210] The Union army present for duty, according to the official
records, numbered 44,805; the Confederate array, 40,335. The Union loss
was 13,647; the Confederate, 10,609. See _Battles and Leaders of the
Civil War_, Vol. I., pp. 538-539.
[211] The impression made by newspaper correspondents on the country was
very unfavorable, and there was a loud and general demand for the
removal of Grant. The feeling took possession of a large majority of
Congress and of the President’s most ardent supporters. Delegates waited
on Lincoln and urged a change of commanders. Finally, A. K. McClure, a
prominent editor of Philadelphia, called on the President at eleven
o’clock at night, and for two hours urged Grant’s removal. After a long
silence, Lincoln drew himself up in his chair, and simply said, “I can’t
spare this man, _he fights_.”
[212] Born in North Carolina, 1817; died, 1876. Graduated at West Point,
1837; distinguished himself in Mexican War; resigned at close of the
war; offered his services to the Confederate cause in 1861; succeeded
Beauregard in the West; invaded Kentucky in 1862, but was driven out by
Buell; was repulsed by Rosecrans at Stone River, but won the great
battle at Chickamauga; was defeated by Grant at Chattanooga in 1863, and
superseded in his command by General Joseph E. Johnston.
[213] Born in Ohio, 1819; died, 1898. Graduated at West Point, 1842;
colonel of Ohio Volunteers in 1861; served successfully in West Virginia
in 1861; succeeded McClellan in command of the Department of the Ohio;
succeeded Buell in command of the Army of the Cumberland; fought
successfully the great battle of Stone River; was defeated by Bragg at
Chickamauga; was superseded and put on waiting orders in the West;
resigned in 1867; Minister to Mexico, 1868–1869; congressman from
California, 1881–1885; Register of United States Treasury, 1885–1893.
[214] Born in Sweden, 1803; died, 1889. Became a mechanical engineer;
came to America in 1839; invented the screw propeller, and in 1843
applied his self-acting gun-lock to a gun on the _Princeton_; invented
the turreted ship, the _Monitor_, the principle of which soon displaced
wooden ships from all the navies in existence; made a large number of
other important inventions.
[215] In twenty years there was hardly a wooden ship of war afloat. The
_Monitor_, however, did not prove to be a good sea-going vessel, and
sank in December, 1862.
[216] Born in Tennessee, 1801; died, 1870. Entered the United States
navy at a very early age; was in the War of 1812; had little opportunity
to display his ability till the Civil War, when he adhered to the Union,
and was at once assigned an important command; established his permanent
fame by the passage of the forts and the capture of New Orleans, April
24, 1862; added to his distinction by the great battle of Mobile Bay,
August 5, 1864; was appointed vice-admiral in 1864, and admiral in 1866,
both of which offices were created for him by Congress.
[217] Born in Philadelphia, 1826; died, 1885. Graduated at West Point at
the head of his class, 1846; served in the Mexican War, and was sent to
Europe as expert to study military methods; published _Armies of
Europe_; was appointed major general and commanded successfully in West
Virginia; appointed commander of the Army of the Potomac in 1861;
succeeded Scott as commanding general, but March 11, 1862, was again
limited in command to the Army of the Potomac; rendered invaluable
service in organizing and drilling the army, but excess of caution
subjected him to severe criticism; commanded in the Antietam campaign;
was placed on waiting orders, November 7, 1862; resigned, 1864; was
Democratic candidate for President in 1864; was governor of New Jersey,
1878–1881.
[218] Born in Virginia, 1807; died, 1891. Graduated at West Point, 1829;
distinguished himself in Indian wars and in War with Mexico; appointed
Confederate major general in 1861; had charge of campaigns in Virginia
till he was wounded in the battle of Fair Oaks, and was superseded by
General Lee; was raised to full rank of general and sent to relieve
Vicksburg, but failed; succeeded Bragg; was driven by Sherman from
Chattanooga to Atlanta, where he was superseded by Hood; was recalled to
confront Sherman in North Carolina; surrendered to Sherman, April 26,
1865. He was one of the ablest strategists of the war.
[219] Born in Virginia, 1824; died, 1863. Graduated at West Point, 1846;
fought in Mexican War; taught in the Virginia Military Institute at
Lexington; was appointed brigadier general in 1861; held his command
with such firmness at Bull Run that the epithet “Stonewall” was given
him, 1861; outgeneraled Frémont, Banks, and Pope, May and June, 1862;
defeated the Union forces at Cedar Mountain, August 9; seized Harper’s
Ferry, September 15; commanded left wing at Antietam, September 17; took
important part at Fredericksburg, December 13, 1862; made the deciding
move at Chancellorsville, where, by mistake, he was shot by one of his
own men, May, 1863.
[220] The losses of the Federals were 5031; those of the Confederates,
6134. See _Battles and Leaders of the Civil War_, Vol. II., p. 219.
[221] Born in Virginia, 1807; died, 1870. Graduated at West Point, 1829;
distinguished himself as engineer in Mexican War; was commandant at West
Point, 1852–1855; resigned when Virginia seceded, and was appointed
general in the Confederate army, April, 1861; succeeded General
Johnston, May 31, 1862; commanded against McClellan in the “Seven Days’
Battles”; defeated Pope in the second battle at Bull Run; fought the
drawn battle of Antietam; gained great victories at Fredericksburg and
Chancellorsville; was defeated at Gettysburg; fought stubbornly against
Grant’s larger forces at the Wilderness, Spottsylvania, and Cold Harbor;
held out against assaults on Petersburg and Richmond till April, 1865;
was obliged to surrender to Grant, April 9, 1865; became president of
Washington and Lee University, Lexington, Virginia, where he remained
till his death.
[222] In the Seven Days’ Battles, McClellan’s loss was 15,849; Lee’s,
20,135. See _Battles and Leaders of the Civil War_, Vol. II., p. 315.
[223] “My paramount object in this struggle,” replied Lincoln, “is to
save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I
could save the Union without freeing any slaves, I would do it; and if I
could save it by freeing all its slaves, I would do it; and if I could
save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.
What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it
helps to save the Union, and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not
believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I
believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I
shall believe doing more will help the cause.”
[224] Born in New York, 1815; died, 1872. Graduated at West Point, 1839;
published classic work on _Elements of Military and Naval Science_,
1846; was prominent in military and political affairs in California,
1846–1854; was appointed major general of the Department of Missouri,
1861; was advanced to command of the Department of the Mississippi in
1862; was made general in chief of the army, which position he held till
Grant ranked him as lieutenant general; commanded the Pacific Division,
1865–1869; Division of the South, 1869–1872.
[225] Born, 1823; died, 1892. Graduated at West Point, 1842; was in
Mexican War; became an explorer, and on the opening of the Civil War
received a command in Maryland; captured a Confederate force at
Blackwater in December, 1861; took Memphis and Island No. 10 in 1862;
was advanced to command of the Army of Virginia; after defeat at second
battle of Bull Run and Chantilly, was relieved of command and sent
against insurgent Indians in Minnesota; was department commander till
1886; major general in 1892.
[226] General Porter’s failure to support Pope was popularly supposed to
be owing to his dissatisfaction with the recall of McClellan. He was
tried by court-martial and dismissed from the army. But the case was
reviewed by direction of Congress, and he was acquitted in 1878, and in
1886 was restored to his army rank.
[227] McClellan reported that the force under his command numbered
87,164, but only about 60,000 were in the battle. Lee says that his own
force engaged was “less than 40,000 men.” The Union losses were 13,203;
the Confederate, 11,172. See _Battles and Leaders of the Civil War_,
Vol. II., pp. 601-603.
[228] Born in Indiana, 1824; died, 1881. Graduated at West Point, 1847;
led a brigade at Bull Run; commanded an expedition to Roanoke Island,
February 8, 1862; commanded a corps of the Army of the Potomac at South
Mountain and Antietam; succeeded McClellan in November, 1862; was
disastrously defeated at Fredericksburg, December 13, 1862; was
superseded by Hooker in January, 1863; was sent to defend Knoxville,
Tennessee; was corps commander in Army of the Potomac till close of the
war; governor of Rhode Island, 1867–1869; United States senator,
1875–1881.
[229] The Union force “available for line of battle” was 116,683; the
Confederate, 78,315. The Union loss was 12,653; the Confederate, 5377.
See _Battles and Leaders of the Civil War_, Vol. III., pp. 145-147.
[230] The records do not enable one to give the numbers so arrested.
Alexander Johnston estimates the number as thirty-eight thousand.
Rhodes, Vol. IV., p. 231, seems to think this number is an exaggeration,
but inclines to the belief that the number may have been nearly twenty
thousand.
[231] New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin.
CHAPTER XXIX.
=THE CAMPAIGNS OF 1863.=
VICKSBURG.
=514. Situation in the West.=—At the opening of the year 1863, it was
evident that in the West the most important military operations would
center about Vicksburg, on the Mississippi River, and Chattanooga, in
eastern Tennessee. Vicksburg was a strongly fortified city, and until it
should be taken the Mississippi River could not be controlled by the
Union forces. The importance of the place lay not only in the fact that
it prevented the Federals from making use of the river, but also in the
fact that it furnished the Confederates with easy passage for troops and
supplies from Texas and Mexico. In strategic importance, it was scarcely
inferior to Richmond itself; for it now held the only remaining railroad
which extended from the far West into the Eastern states of the
Confederacy. Chattanooga was also important, since it was so situated as
to control, not only Eastern Tennessee, but also the most easy and
natural passage from Virginia to the Southwest. Soon after Halleck was
placed in command at Washington, in July, 1862, Grant was left in charge
of the territory about Vicksburg, and Rosecrans about Chattanooga.
=515. First Efforts against Vicksburg.=—Vicksburg is situated on a high
bluff on the eastern side of the Mississippi. Just above the town, the
river turns sharply to the northeast, and then, winding into a loop on
which Vicksburg is built, flows again toward the southwest. The regions
west and south being so low as often to be flooded, and the territory
being intersected by numerous streams, military movements were rendered
extremely difficult. In November and December, 1862, and again in
January, 1863, unsuccessful attempts were made against the city, by
Grant and Sherman. As the spring of 1863 advanced, efforts were renewed.
Grant cut a new channel for the river, across the neck, hoping to leave
Vicksburg high and dry inland. In this endeavor he was not successful.
=516. Johnston and Pemberton.=—The Confederate forces in the West were
commanded by General Joseph E. Johnston, who had now recovered from his
wound (§ 495), General Pemberton being second in command. Johnston
desired to meet Grant in the field, thinking that thus Vicksburg could
best be held, and ordered Pemberton to conduct operations on this line;
but Pemberton, encouraged by some recent successes, and not recognizing
Johnston’s right to command him, chose to fight behind the
fortifications of the city. This difference of policy divided their
forces, so that, while Pemberton remained at Vicksburg, Johnston, with
headquarters at Jackson, held himself in readiness to attack the lines
of Grant as opportunity might offer.
=517. Capture of Vicksburg.=—Grant’s next strategic move was one of the
most daringly planned and brilliantly executed of the whole war. It was
to pass with his army through the Louisiana swamps west of the city,
and, cutting himself free from his base of supplies, to obtain a
foothold on the river below, while Admiral Porter should force a passage
in the night with his gunboats loaded with supplies. The movement, in
spite of determined resistance on the part of the Confederates, was
completely successful. After several minor engagements, Grant took
possession of the country as far as eighty miles south and west of
Vicksburg. Without waiting to establish a base of supplies, and
disregarding the earnest protest of Sherman, he advanced, May 7, from
Grand Gulf northeast toward Jackson. Here, on May 14th, he defeated
Johnston, and later joined with Sherman on the east side of Vicksburg,
thus separating the Confederate armies. He then defeated Pemberton in
the open field, and finally, by May 18, drove him behind his
fortifications.[232] After weeks of fruitless effort, Pemberton was
obliged, July 4, to surrender with over twenty-nine thousand prisoners
of war.[233] This was by far the greatest Union victory yet achieved,
and the number of prisoners was the largest ever surrendered in America.
His success made Grant the foremost of the Federal generals. Four days
later, Port Hudson also surrendered, and the Mississippi River
throughout its course was opened to the Union army. The Confederacy was
thus cut into two parts, and no reënforcements or supplies in any
considerable amount could thereafter reach the Southern armies from the
west side of the river.
THE CHATTANOOGA CAMPAIGN
[Illustration: THE VICKSBURG CAMPAIGN]
=518. Eastern Tennessee: Chickamauga.=—While Grant was occupied about
Vicksburg, important events were taking place in the eastern part of
Tennessee. In June, Rosecrans, who had been much criticised for
inactivity after the battle of Stone River, broke up his encampment in
the vicinity of Murfreesborough. Bragg was a few miles to the south, at
Shelbyville, but was soon forced to fall back on Chattanooga. Rosecrans
then moved so far around Bragg’s army to the south that the Confederate
commander deemed it prudent to evacuate Chattanooga and withdraw some
twelve miles into Georgia. Rosecrans hastened to pursue; but Bragg,
after receiving reënforcements under Longstreet from Virginia, turned
upon his pursuers. Rosecrans drew back toward Chattanooga, and at
Chickamauga was vigorously attacked by Bragg. The battle raged furiously
for two days, September 19 and 20, and was one of the most sanguinary of
the war. The Union forces were finally driven from the field.[234]
General George H. Thomas,[235] who, like Admiral Farragut, was a
Southern officer that took the Union side, greatly distinguished himself
by withstanding the final assaults on the center, and so delayed the
pursuit that the Union army was able to withdraw in fair condition into
Chattanooga. For this service, Thomas was afterwards called “The Rock of
Chickamauga.”
[Illustration: GENERAL GEORGE H. THOMAS.]
=519. The Situation at Chattanooga.=—East of Chattanooga, at a distance
of about three miles, is situated a long, high hill, rising almost to
the magnitude of a mountain, known as Missionary Ridge; while south of
the city another elevation, known as Lookout Mountain, rises about
seventeen hundred feet. On these two heights, overlooking Chattanooga,
Bragg established his army. He was also in control of the Tennessee
River. The force of Rosecrans, shut up in the city, had only a single
road, known by the soldiers as the “cracker trail,” for supplies from
the west. Every other approach was commanded by the Confederate guns.
Bragg was so sure that the Union army would be forced to surrender, that
he sent Longstreet to assist in the siege of Knoxville, which city was
then held by General Burnside.
=520. Grant at Chattanooga.=—Soon after the battle of Chickamauga,
Rosecrans was relieved, and Grant, who had been put at the head of all
the armies west of the Alleghanies, assumed command in his place. To
reënforce the Union forces, Hooker was sent with the Twelfth Corps from
Virginia, and Sherman, with the Army of the Tennessee, was brought from
Vicksburg by way of Memphis. Hooker took a position on the right,
Sherman on the left, while Thomas, with the Army of the Cumberland,
commanded the center.
[Illustration: GENERAL WILLIAM T. SHERMAN.]
=521. Battles of Chattanooga.=—Grant’s plan, after opening a line of
supplies, was to have the two wings of the army push back the opposing
flanks of the enemy until the center would be obliged to retire from
Missionary Ridge. Bragg’s left, on Lookout Mountain, was some five miles
in front of his main line; and Hooker’s army, in order to dislodge the
enemy, was obliged to pass over the shoulder of the mountain. The
Twelfth Corps pushed up the mountain side with great gallantry, fought
what is sometimes called “The Battle above the Clouds,” November 24, and
soon succeeded in driving the enemy from the mountain and back beyond
Missionary Ridge. Sherman,[236] on the left, advanced rapidly, but found
a deep ravine in his way. Thomas was directed to engage the enemy in
front, in order to keep the Confederate center from attacking Sherman,
but not to advance to a general engagement. His troops, however, not to
be outdone either by the Army of Virginia or by the Army of the
Tennessee, charged up the sides of Missionary Ridge and drove all before
them. Bragg’s forces, compelled to withdraw November 25, pushed rapidly
south through the field of Chickamauga and took up their winter quarters
at Dalton.[237]
=522. Results of the Campaigns in the West.=—The battles about
Chattanooga closed the campaigns for the year. Kentucky and Tennessee
had been secured by the Union forces, who, through the opening of the
Mississippi River, were enabled to pass freely to the Gulf of Mexico.
The successes of Grant at Vicksburg and Chattanooga raised him to such
importance that in November he was called to Washington, and, in
February, with the rank of lieutenant general, superseded Halleck as
general in chief of all the armies.
EASTERN CAMPAIGNS.
[Illustration: GENERAL JOSEPH HOOKER.]
=523. Chancellorsville.=—In the East, at the close of the Antietam
campaign, McClellan, as we have seen, had been superseded by Burnside,
and the latter, after Fredericksburg, by Hooker[238] (§§ 505-506). In
April, 1863, the Union army of about ninety thousand advanced southward
for the purpose of pushing its way by direct line to Richmond; but a few
miles south of Fredericksburg, Hooker was confronted (at
Chancellorsville) by a Confederate army of about forty-five thousand
under Lee and Jackson. The battle which ensued, May 3, was most
disastrous to the Union cause. By superior generalship, Lee and Jackson
completely thwarted the strategy of Hooker, and not only repulsed the
Federal army, but threw it into confusion and drove it back to the north
side of the Rappahannock. The Union loss was about seventeen thousand;
the Confederate, about twelve thousand. The loss of the Confederates,
however, was not counted by numbers alone; for just before the main
battle, General “Stonewall” Jackson, the most successful corps commander
that the war produced on either side, was accidentally fired upon and
killed by his own men.
[Illustration: GENERAL GEORGE G. MEADE.]
=524. Second Advance into the North.=—Inspired by his remarkable
success at Chancellorsville, Lee decided to attempt again a movement
into the North. Crossing the Blue Ridge and marching down the Shenandoah
Valley, he passed the Potomac at Harper’s Ferry, and, advancing across
Maryland into Pennsylvania, threatened, not only the rear of Washington,
but also the cities of Baltimore and Philadelphia. Hooker followed,
keeping at the right of Lee, between Harper’s Ferry and Washington, and
moving rapidly northward for the protection of the threatened cities.
The Union army was reënforced from every quarter. On the 28th of June,
Hooker was superseded by General George G. Meade,[239] of Pennsylvania,
a soldierly officer who, though uniformly successful as a division and
corps commander, had as yet occupied only a subordinate position. Meade
pushed his force of about ninety-three thousand rapidly forward and
concentrated it in the neighborhood of Gettysburg, taking up his
position on a crest of hills in a circular line south and east of
Gettysburg, on what is known as Cemetery Ridge. The Confederate line of
about seventy thousand occupied the hills opposite, on Seminary
Ridge.[240] At the Union right was Culp’s Hill, and at the left were two
hills, known as Round Top and Little Round Top. Thus situated, both
armies made ready for the most crucial battle of the war. If Meade
should be overwhelmed, the cities of the North would be at Lee’s mercy,
and the Confederacy would, in all probability be recognized in Europe;
while if Lee should be defeated, he could hardly hope to do more than
prolong an unsuccessful conflict.
[Illustration: GENERAL JAMES LONGSTREET.[241]]
[Illustration: GENERAL GEORGE E. PICKETT.[242]]
=525. Battle of Gettysburg.=—During the first and second days’
engagements, July 1 and 2, the Confederates had the advantage. Culp’s
Hill was taken, and the Union right was pushed back from its strong
defensive line. On the left, however, the Unionists took and held Little
Round Top. On the other parts of the field the repeated onsets of the
Confederates were not successful. Early on the morning of the third day,
the Federals assaulted Culp’s Hill, and, after most desperate fighting,
succeeded in retaking it. Lee then made the mistake of deciding to stake
everything on a mighty effort to break the Union center. General George
E. Pickett’s division of Longstreet’s corps, consisting of about fifteen
thousand veterans, was ordered forward for a charge. After a tremendous
fire of one hundred and thirty cannon for two hours, for the purpose of
throwing the Union line into confusion, this division, made up of the
flower of the Confederate army, rushed forward to the assault. For about
one mile they were within range of the Federal guns. No men ever fought
more bravely, but success was impossible. The dead and the dying strewed
the ground along the way. Only a few of the fifteen thousand reached the
Union line, and most of these were obliged to give themselves up as
prisoners. The effort failed, and the battle was lost. Lee magnanimously
took the whole blame of the defeat upon himself, although he might,
seemingly, have thrown part of it on subordinates. The Confederate loss
was about twenty thousand, while that of Meade was about twenty-three
thousand.[243] Lee conducted a most skillful retreat, and was slowly
followed by the tired Unionists across Maryland into Virginia, until the
two armies confronted each other on the Rapidan, a branch of the
Rappahannock. There they remained more or less inactive until the
following spring.
EMBARRASSMENT OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
=526. The Conscription of Troops in the North.=—As the war dragged
along, the novelty of it wore off, and enlistments in the North began to
flag. The discouraging outcome of the Peninsula campaign and of the
battles of Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville caused a rapid decrease
in the number of volunteers. Draft, or conscription, was therefore
resorted to by Act of Congress, March 3, 1863. This Act of Conscription,
however, allowed exemption on payment of three hundred dollars, an
amount deemed sufficient for securing a substitute. As only fifty
thousand men were thus obtained, the three hundred dollar clause was
repealed, July 4, 1864, and a new act declared that the conscript must
serve or provide a substitute. To furnish the means of avoiding such an
alternative, insurance companies were sometimes formed, and at times as
much as one thousand dollars was paid for a substitute. By this system
the service was much demoralized, for the large sums offered attracted
great numbers who had little or no interest in the cause. Thousands of
this class deserted, and to secure bounty, reënlisted, in some instances
many times over. Thus “bounty jumper” became a term of deserved
reproach. To the first of the Conscription Acts there was much
resistance, especially in New York City. On July 13, 1863, a mob took
possession of the streets and had entire control of the city for several
days. The rioters burned about fifty buildings, and hanged negroes to
lamp-posts. The colored orphan asylum was burned, and the inmates were
with difficulty rescued from the flames. It was not until troops sent
from Gettysburg had come to assist the police that order was restored.
About twelve hundred of the rioters were killed. Though conscription did
not of itself yield very many soldiers to the army, it greatly
stimulated volunteering.
=527. Conscription in the South.=—As early as April, 1862, all
able-bodied white men in the South between the ages of eighteen and
forty-five were conscripted (§ 454); and in February, 1864, the age
limit was extended, so as to include all from seventeen to fifty. Thus,
from almost the very beginning of the war, not only agriculture, but all
the other industries of the South were thrown into the hands of men
beyond fifty, of women, of negroes, and of children. The suffering that
ensued may be imagined, but can hardly be described.[244]
=528. The Vallandigham Case.=—In 1863 there was not a little excitement
over the case of Clement L. Vallandigham, a member of Congress from
Ohio, who was the most extreme of Northern sympathizers with the
Confederacy. For utterances disloyal to the government he was arrested
by General Burnside, and, after trial by a military commission, was
imprisoned, and, a little later, banished. He went first within the
limits of the Confederacy, and then to Canada. By the Democracy of his
state his arrest was regarded as arbitrary and his sentence unlawful,
and to show their displeasure, they nominated him for governor. Though
he was defeated by about one hundred thousand majority, the size of the
vote in his favor was a significant indication of public feeling. The
legality of his arrest and banishment was tested by an appeal to the
Supreme Court, which decided that under the Constitution it had no power
to review the action of a general officer of the army.
=529. Financial Conditions.=—It was at this time that the enormous cost
of the war required the new efforts for raising money which have already
been described (§§ 456-458). In the North industries flourished and the
bills of the government were promptly paid; but in the South a similar
result was impossible. The blockade prevented an income from tariff and
from the sale of cotton (§ 455). The bonds payable “six months after the
ratification of peace with the United States” sank in value as the
success of the South became more and more doubtful, until finally they
almost ceased to have any value whatever. A similar fate befell the
Confederate bank notes. As these notes were the only currency in
circulation, the prices of all articles rose enormously. In 1864 a pair
of shoes was worth one hundred and twenty-five dollars in Confederate
currency; a barrel of flour, two hundred and twenty-five dollars; a
pound of butter, fifteen dollars, and a bushel of potatoes, twenty-five
dollars. In one instance, thirty cords of wood were sold for thirty
teacupfuls of salt. Prices in general were about fifty times as high as
they had been when currency was at par.
* * * * *
REFERENCES.—Grant, _Memoirs_, Vol. I., 437-570; _Battles and
Leaders of the Civil War_, Vol. III., 154-255, 493, 638; Dodge,
_View_, 93-101, 172-183, 241-261; Johnston, _Orations_, Vol.
III., 82-92; Sherman, _Memoirs_, Vol. II., 638. The Histories of
Rhodes and Schouler are valuable on all points. Writings of the
leading statesmen and generals are indicated in Channing and
Hart’s _Guide_, §§ 32-33. See also De Leon, _Four Years in Rebel
Capitals_; McCulloch, _Men and Measures_; Greeley,
_Recollections_; Cable, _Strange, True Stories of Louisiana_; J.
E. Cooke, _Hilt to Hilt_; Trowbridge, _Drummer Boy_, and
_Cudjo’s Cave_.
-----
[232] Grant’s achievement is thus described by Rhodes: “In nineteen days
Grant had crossed the great river into the enemy’s territory; had
marched one hundred and eighty miles through a most difficult country,
skirmishing constantly; had fought and won five distinct battles, . . .
had taken the capital of the state and destroyed its arsenals and
military manufactories, and was now in the rear of Vicksburg.”—Rhodes,
_History_, Vol. IV., p. 310.
[233] Grant’s forces at the beginning of the siege numbered about
43,000, but they were so constantly reënforced that at the end he had
not less than about 75,000. Official reports of the Confederate forces
have not been preserved. Johnston, June 4, estimated his force at 24,000
effective men. The lowest estimate of Pemberton’s force is 28,000; the
highest, 60,000. Grant’s aggregate losses in the campaign were 9362.
Confederate reports show a loss before the surrender of 9059. The parole
lists on file at Washington give the names of 29,491 who surrendered.
See _Battles and Leaders of the Civil War_, Vol. II., pp. 549-550.
[234] The army of Rosecrans, according to official returns, numbered
56,965; that of Bragg, 71,551. The losses of Rosecrans were 16,179;
those of Bragg, 17,804. See _Battles and Leaders of the Civil War_, Vol.
III., pp. 673-676.
[235] Born in Virginia, 1816; died, 1870. Graduated at West Point, 1840;
distinguished himself against the Seminoles and in the Mexican War;
commanded a Federal brigade in Virginia early in 1861, and then a
division in Kentucky, where he gained an important Union victory at Mill
Spring, January 19, 1862; led the right wing at Perryville, and the
center at Stone River; commanded the center at Chickamauga; commanded
the Army of the Cumberland at Missionary Ridge; coöperated with Sherman
in the advance on Atlanta; given command against Hood, whom he
overwhelmed at Nashville, December 15 and 16, 1864.
[236] Born in Ohio, 1820; died, 1891. Graduated at West Point, 1840; was
in the Seminole and the Mexican Wars; resigned, and engaged in business
in New York, California, and Kansas; superintended Military College in
Louisville, 1860–1861; was appointed colonel, 1861; commanded a brigade
at Bull Run; went to the West and rendered important aid at Shiloh; was
advanced to major general and commanded a corps at Vicksburg; commanded
the left at Chattanooga; was given entire charge in the West when Grant
went to Washington; with great energy and skill forced General Johnston
to retire to Atlanta; took Atlanta, and, in November, started on his
famous “march to the sea”; reached Savannah at Christmas; received
Johnston’s surrender, April 26, 1865; was made lieutenant general in
1866, and succeeded Grant as general in 1869; retired in 1883; published
important memoirs.
[237] No official figures indicating the relative strength of Grant and
Bragg at Chattanooga are given. Grant’s force is estimated at 60,000,
that of Bragg at considerably less. The Union loss was 5817; the
Confederate, 6687. See _Battles and Leaders of the Civil War_, Vol.
III., pp. 729-730.
[238] Born in Massachusetts, 1814; died, 1879. Graduated at West Point,
1837; distinguished himself in Mexican War; was appointed brigadier
general in 1861; had important commands at Yorktown, Williamsburg,
Malvern Hill, Antietam, and Fredericksburg; succeeded Burnside in 1863;
was disastrously defeated at Chancellorsville; was sent to reënforce
Grant at Chattanooga, where he commanded the right wing; accompanied
Sherman to Atlanta; was brevetted major general in 1865; retired in
1868.
[239] Born at Cadiz, Spain, 1815; died, 1872. Graduated at West Point,
1835; fought in Seminole and Mexican Wars; commanded a brigade under
McClellan in the Peninsula, where he was wounded; commanded a division
at Antietam and Fredericksburg, and a corps at Chancellorsville;
superseded Hooker in June, 1863; won the great victory of Gettysburg,
July 1, 2, and 3; commanded the Army of the Potomac, under Grant, till
the close of the war.
[240] The figures here given are those reached after a careful
computation of the entire strength of both armies, with the additions
and reductions between the crossing of the Potomac and the beginning of
the battle. The exact figures are 93,500, and 75,268, but it is
estimated that Lee’s losses by sickness, straggling, and furnishing
guards to prisoners before the battle were about five thousand. See
_Battles and Leaders of the Civil War_, Vol. III., p. 440.
[241] Born in South Carolina, 1821. Graduated at West Point, 1842;
served in Mexican War; entered Confederate service; commanded, as
lieutenant general, the First Corps of the Army of Northern Virginia,
1862–1865; served for a short time in Tennessee; wounded at the
Wilderness, 1864; held various Federal offices after the war, among them
the mission to Turkey.
[242] Born at Richmond, Virginia, 1825; died, 1875. Graduated at West
Point, 1846; served well in Mexican War and afterwards on Puget Sound,
where he resisted encroachments of the British; entered Confederate
service in 1861; brigadier general, 1862; wounded at Gaines’s Mill;
commanded charge at Gettysburg; in 1864 defended Petersburg skillfully
against Butler; engaged in the insurance business until his death.
[243] The official figures are 20,451 and 23,003. See _Battles and
Leaders of the Civil War_, Vol. III., pp. 437-439.
[244] There was opposition to conscription in the South also, especially
in Georgia.
CHAPTER XXX.
=THE CAMPAIGNS OF 1864.=
GRANT AND LEE IN VIRGINIA.
=530. Plan of Campaigns.=—The spring of 1864 found Grant as general in
chief of all the Union armies, with Meade at the head of the Army of the
Potomac, Sherman at the head of all Federal troops in the West, and
General B. F. Butler in immediate command of the Army of the James.
Grant chose not to supersede Meade, but decided, while keeping him in
the field, to superintend the Eastern campaign in person. The “grand
strategy” was that all the Union armies should advance on the 4th of
May, and that each should keep its opponents so occupied that no one
Confederate army could reënforce any of the others. The Army of the
Potomac was to move directly toward Richmond, attacking the enemy
wherever they could be found. Sherman was to push south from Chattanooga
with a similar purpose, toward Atlanta, while Butler was to advance up
the James River from Fortress Monroe to Richmond. In this way, it was
hoped to finish the war in the course of the summer.
[Illustration: OPERATIONS IN THE EAST, 1864]
=531. Advance of Grant toward Richmond.=—Grant, with a force of about
one hundred and twenty thousand men, crossed the Rapidan and came upon
Lee a little south of Chancellorsville. The reports do not reveal
exactly the size of Lee’s army, but he probably had about sixty-five
thousand men. The Confederates were strongly intrenched, and a hotly
contested battle raged for two days, May 5 and 6. It is known as “The
Battle of the Wilderness,” since it was fought in a country of tangled
thickets. In some cases, so fierce was the fighting, small trees were
severed by bullets. Lee could not be dislodged from his strong
intrenchments, and Grant, after enormous losses, moved with the bulk of
his force by the left flank, and thus forced the Confederates to leave
their defenses and fall back to a new line. From the 8th to the 20th
various desperate conflicts took place about Spottsylvania, with a
similar result. These battles were among the most stubbornly fought of
the whole war, the conflict at what is known as the “Bloody Angle” being
memorable as an engagement at close quarters, in which large numbers
were killed. On the 21st, Grant, undismayed by his failure to break the
Confederate lines, again moved by the left flank, and Lee fell back
still nearer to Richmond, intrenching himself very strongly on the North
Anna River, and later at Cold Harbor. Here, on June 3, Grant made a
desperate effort to crush the Confederates by assault, but Lee’s lines
could not be broken, and the attempt was as unsuccessful as the
Confederate assaults had been at Malvern Hill and at Gettysburg. At Cold
Harbor, the Federal loss was over ten thousand, while that of the
Confederates behind their intrenchments was only about two thousand. The
entire campaign is rendered memorable by the unfailing skill of Lee’s
resistance and his remarkable foresight in divining the movements of his
enemy, as well as by the splendid energy of Grant’s attacks.
=532. Crossing the James.=—Skillfully concealing his main movement by
continuous attacks along the front, Grant then accomplished the great
feat of swinging his entire army across the James, with the purpose of
approaching Richmond from the south. There, however, he was confronted
with strong fortifications about Petersburg, a city some twenty miles
south of Richmond, on the Appomattox River. During McClellan’s campaign
and since that time, so carefully had the entire country been fortified
under the direction of Lee that Grant found an immediate advance
impossible. The defenses in front of Petersburg were at once mined by
the Federal forces, and on the 30th of July four tons of gunpowder were
exploded under the most powerful of the Confederate works. Guns and men
were thrown high into the air; but, by a gross blunder, the troops who
were to charge in through the breach were not ready, and before the
assault was made, the pit was protected by Confederate cannon brought in
from a distance on every side. The Union forces lost many more by this
effort, known as the “Battle of the Crater,” than did the Confederates.
The best that Grant could do during the rest of the year was to extend
his lines to the south so far as to cut the railroad from the southeast,
which furnished the Confederates a large part of their supplies, and to
drill the new troops that came pouring in from the seemingly
inexhaustible North.[245]
[Illustration: B. F. BUTLER]
=533. Subordinate Movements.=—The subordinate movements in the East had
rendered Grant very little assistance. In the spring General Butler[246]
had been sent up the James River, with an army of thirty-six thousand
men, to attack Richmond from the south, but the major part of his troops
were forced by the Confederates into a bend of the river at Bermuda
Hundred, and there, as Grant said, were “bottled up.” Sigel and Hunter
also had been sent into the Shenandoah Valley for the purpose of taking
Lynchburg and then advancing on Richmond from the southwest, but they
were defeated by General Early and driven over the mountains into West
Virginia. Thus the Confederates secured command of the entire Valley and
threatened Washington. Passing over into Maryland early in July, they
defeated General Lew Wallace at Monocacy, and then pushed on until Early
with his force actually appeared before the defenses north of the
capital. But finding these more formidable than he had anticipated, he
withdrew without making an attack. Late in July, one of Early’s
subordinates, McCausland, burned Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, in
consequence of a refusal of the city to pay a ransom of five hundred
thousand dollars in greenbacks. The vigor of this policy provoked
immediate retaliation. In September Grant sent Sheridan against Early,
and the tables were soon turned. Early was defeated in several
engagements in September and October; and Sheridan, in accordance with
Grant’s orders, desolated the Valley of Virginia so completely that no
further supplies could be furnished the Confederate army before another
summer.
SHERMAN’S CAMPAIGNS.
=534. Sherman’s Advance.=—In the West, the movement of Sherman was in
some respects similar to that of Grant. The Union force gathered at
Chattanooga numbered about one hundred thousand men, while that of the
Confederates numbered about ninety thousand.[247] Sherman’s policy was
to attack Johnston’s defenses lightly in front, and by extending his
line either to the right or to the left, attack the latter in the flank
and oblige him to come out into open battle or to retreat. Johnston,
though constantly fortified, instead of fighting vigorously, as Lee was
doing, fell back without offering great resistance. This course was
justified by the fact that Johnston knew that Sherman’s army must be fed
by transportation over a single line of railroad, and by the belief that
if Sherman could be drawn into the South, so much of the Union army
would be required for guarding trains, and such reënforcements might be
secured by the Confederates as they neared Atlanta, that the two armies
might ultimately meet on equal terms. In other words, it seemed obvious
to the Confederate commander that the farther south Sherman should be
drawn, the weaker he would be. The mistake in this strategy lay in
underestimating the resources of the North in furnishing new troops with
which to aid in protecting the railroad and keeping up the numbers of
the Union force.[248]
=535. Removal of Johnston.=—The campaign was in a mountainous country
just south of Chattanooga, and great skill was shown by both generals.
Johnston was rapidly pushed back until his forces were near Atlanta, and
a decisive battle was at hand. But the people of the South, not
understanding the merits of Johnston’s method of conducting the
campaign, became impatient. President Davis,[249] who had no partiality
for Johnston, yielded to the pressure of public opinion, and,
accordingly, just as the Confederates were about to strike their blow,
Johnston was removed, and General John B. Hood,[250] who had the
reputation of being one of the most energetic generals in the
Confederate army, was placed in command.
[Illustration: GENERAL J. B. HOOD.]
=536. General Hood’s Methods.=—Hood’s fighting qualities, however, in
accordance with Sherman’s predictions, at once took the form of
rashness. He seemed determined to fight, whether a favorable opportunity
offered or not. In three important battles in July, on different sides
of Atlanta,[251] Hood made desperate attempts to beat back the
approaching forces, but was unsuccessful. On September 2 he was obliged
to evacuate the city, and early in October he adopted the policy of
moving around Sherman’s army and attacking the line of supplies. This
was done in the hope that Sherman would follow; but the move was exactly
what Sherman anticipated and desired. Following for a short distance, he
sent on half of his army under General Thomas, while he returned with
the other half to Atlanta. Hood pushed on vigorously toward Nashville.
At Franklin, south of Nashville, a battle was fought, November 30,
between Hood and a part of Thomas’s army under Schofield, in which the
Confederates lost heavily.[252] Thomas made his stand at Nashville and
fortified his line with great skill. Remaining long wholly on the
defensive, he was much criticised for his delay in attacking; but his
answer was that, while willing to turn over his command to another, he
would not go out of his defenses to fight a decisive battle until he was
ready. The outcome justified his course. On the 15th of December Hood
advanced to the attack, and the battle raged for two days; but when the
Confederates had spent their force, Thomas ordered his men forward and
pushed on so vigorously that Hood’s army was completely broken up and
dispersed.[253] It was the most decisive Union victory of the war. Thus
Hood, after losing five battles, had now lost his army.
[Illustration: SHERMAN’S MARCH TO THE SEA]
=537. Sherman’s March to the Sea.=—As soon as Hood was clearly out of
his way, Sherman began preparations for carrying out a plan which had
for some time been maturing in his mind. In the spring a movement from
Atlanta to Mobile had been contemplated; but Banks had failed to advance
upon Mobile from the west, and the plan had been abandoned. Sherman now
obtained the consent of Grant to destroy the public works at Atlanta, to
break up the railroads so as to cut off Lee’s sources of supply, and
then to take his army across Georgia to the sea. This project was
undertaken for the purpose of closing in upon Lee from the south and in
this manner bringing the war to an end. About the middle of November,
Sherman, having burned such parts of Atlanta as might be useful to the
enemy, cut all the telegraph wires extending to the north, tore up the
railroads in every direction, and then with his army started for the
sea. He had about sixty thousand men. These were divided into four
divisions and were spread out so that they covered a territory about
sixty miles in width. To make repair as difficult as possible, the
railroads were destroyed by heating and twisting the rails, and the
stations and bridges were burned.
=538. Capture of Savannah.=—The army reached the sea, December 13,
after a march of nearly four weeks. During all this time the people of
the North were ignorant of what Sherman was doing. Fort McAllister, at
the mouth of the Ogeechee River, was stormed by Hazen’s division of the
Fifteenth Corps, and in a single assault of a few minutes was taken.
Savannah was besieged, and after eight days the city surrendered,
December 21, with a hundred and fifty guns and twenty-five thousand
bales of cotton. The army then went into winter quarters, where it
remained until February, 1865. Thus Sherman had destroyed the most
important Confederate army in the West, had everywhere dispersed
opposing troops, and had made transportation of supplies for Lee from
the south and west so difficult as to be practically impossible.
NAVAL VICTORIES.
=539. Work along the Coast: Fort Fisher.=—In the course of the year
1864, much was done along the coast to lessen the number of ports held
by the Confederates. The most important of the expeditions were those
against Fort Fisher in North Carolina, and Mobile in Alabama. Fort
Fisher, which commanded the entrance to Wilmington Bay, had successfully
resisted an attack by General Butler and Admiral Porter, but now yielded
to a force under General Terry, sent by Grant.
=540. The Taking of Mobile.=—Even more important was the taking of
Mobile. The mouth of the harbor was defended by Fort Gaines and Fort
Morgan, and the passage to the city was protected by torpedoes and
mines. Within the harbor were four powerful Confederate gunboats,
including the _Tennessee_, commanded by Commodore Buchanan, the former
captain of the _Merrimac_. Outside, Admiral Farragut had a fleet of
fourteen wooden vessels and four monitors. On the 5th of August Farragut
determined to hazard a desperate attempt to run past the forts. The task
was not less difficult than the one which had confronted him at New
Orleans. In order to have a better means of observing and directing the
battle, he had himself lashed to the topmast of the flagship _Hartford_.
The battle that followed was desperate and brilliant. One of Farragut’s
vessels was blown up and sunk by a torpedo, but the admiral pushed on
past the forts and engaged the _Tennessee_, which was obliged to
surrender. The capitulation of the forts soon followed. After the fall
of Wilmington and Mobile, the only port still held by the Confederates
was Charleston. Importation of supplies by the Confederates was
therefore rendered almost impossible, and many of the Federal vessels
engaged in preventing blockade running were released for other services.
=541. Defeat of the Alabama: Loss of the Florida and Georgia.=—In the
course of the same year, the most powerful of the Confederate privateers
was destroyed. The _Alabama_, which under Captain Raphael S. Semmes had
taken many Union vessels in all parts of the world, was followed by the
_Kearsarge_, under Captain Winslow, into the harbor of Cherbourg, in the
north of France. The ships were about equal in weight and strength.
Semmes dared Winslow to a naval duel and his challenge was instantly
accepted. The fight occurred on June 19, 1864, and was witnessed by
thousands of people on the banks. The firing of the _Alabama_ was much
more rapid than that of the _Kearsarge_, but much less accurate. Within
about an hour after the engagement began, the _Alabama_ was found to be
in a sinking condition. She struck her flag and soon afterward sank.
Captain Semmes was taken from the water by an English yacht and carried
to England. Another famous Confederate cruiser, the _Florida_, was
accidentally sunk near Fortress Monroe; and the _Georgia_ was sold and
became a merchant vessel under the English flag. All this, however, did
not occur until the commerce of the United States had been practically
destroyed.
POLITICAL AFFAIRS.
=542. Opposition to Lincoln’s Policy.=—The suspension of _habeas
corpus_ in 1863, and the arrest of Vallandigham and many others, excited
great feeling among the opponents of President Lincoln (§§ 512, 528). He
was boldly accused of exceeding his constitutional rights, and many
newspapers carried on a vigorous battle against him. The history of
public sentiment was still more striking in 1864. Early in the year many
of the leading Republicans, especially those of the more radical type,
thought it would not do to renominate Lincoln. There was a widespread
outcry for peace, and the impression became general that peace would be
possible if the government would abandon its policy of emancipation.
Grant’s Virginia campaign had resulted in great slaughter and had
brought sorrow into thousands of households, without bringing him any
nearer to Richmond than McClellan had been two years before. Greeley and
other prominent Republicans desired a change of policy; but
notwithstanding all warnings, Lincoln kept steadily on his course,
although at one time he recognized the probability of his defeat for the
Presidency.[254]
=543. Effects of Victory.=—But these dark hours were soon followed by
light. First came Farragut’s exploit in taking Mobile; and then, on the
3d of September, followed the stirring news that Sherman had taken
Atlanta. The effect was like magic. Seward, in a speech, September 14,
said, “Farragut and Sherman have knocked the bottom out of the Chicago
[Democratic] nominations.” Then, as a crowning and thrilling
inspiration, came the descriptions of Sheridan’s ride (§ 533) and the
complete routing of Early at Fisher’s Hill. A veritable wave of
enthusiasm took possession of the North. Lincoln was unanimously
renominated, with Andrew Johnson of Tennessee for Vice President; and
the election gave them two hundred and twelve votes, as against
twenty-one given McClellan, the Democratic candidate.[255]
=544. Results of the Election.=—The result of this election and the
Federal victories put new vigor into the Union cause. Recruiting went on
rapidly, so that the government in the spring of 1865 had more than a
million men under arms. The Confederacy had no such reserve power. It
had now lost much more than half of its territory; its sources of
supplies were cut off, and its armies were confronted from the south, as
well as from the north, by overwhelming forces.
=545. Changes in the Cabinet.=—Lincoln’s first Cabinet contained not
only his rivals for the Republican nomination in 1860, but also a number
of representative “War Democrats.” When Stanton, who had always been a
Democrat, took the place of Cameron (§ 475), it was noticed that the
Cabinet contained four Democrats and only three Republicans. When
reminded of this fact, Lincoln intimated that he counted for something
himself, and could perhaps manage to prevent the administration from
becoming Democratic. As time went on, there were many complaints in
regard to the supposed lack of harmony in the Cabinet; and the
Presidential nominating convention of 1864 requested the President to
make the body more homogeneous. This resolution was aimed especially at
Montgomery Blair of Maryland, who was Postmaster-General, and Edward
Bates of Missouri, the Attorney-General. They soon resigned and were
succeeded respectively by William Dennison of Ohio, who had been
president of the nominating convention, and James Speed, a prominent
lawyer from Kentucky. Salmon P. Chase, who had often been much out of
harmony with the President, resigned the Secretaryship of the Treasury,
and was succeeded by William P. Fessenden of Maine. When Chief Justice
Taney, after long and important service, died, on the 12th of October,
there was much anxiety in regard to the appointment to the position thus
made vacant—the most important in the gift of the President. Among
others, Chase was a very prominent candidate, strongly urged by radical
Republicans. The President gave no sign of his intentions until December
6, when, without having consulted any one, he sent to the Senate, in his
own handwriting, the nomination of Chase to be Chief Justice. The
nomination was immediately confirmed without reference to a committee.
The changes in the Cabinet and the appointment of Chase gave great
satisfaction.
=546. The Thirteenth Amendment.=—The last important work of Congress in
1864 was the passage of a joint resolution to submit to the states the
Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which should forever prohibit
slavery throughout the United States. The Proclamation of Emancipation
afforded no certainty that after the seceding states had been brought
back into the Union, they might not legally reëstablish slavery. This
could be prevented only by a Constitutional Amendment. Such an Amendment
had been offered in April, and had passed the Senate, but had failed in
the House to secure the required two-thirds vote. Now, however, it was
recalled, and after a long and memorable debate was duly passed in the
required manner (January 31, 1865), amid great enthusiasm on the part of
Representatives and auditors. The Amendment, however, before it could be
operative, had to receive the approval of three-fourths of the states.
The President saw that it would probably fail by one vote, and, in order
to secure that vote, he procured the admission of the territory of
Nevada as a state.[256]
* * * * *
REFERENCES.—Grant’s _Memoirs_, Vol. II., 177-343, contains the
leader’s account of the entire Virginia campaign of 1864; from
344-386, Grant comments on Sherman’s campaign. Sherman’s
_Memoirs_ must be consulted for the campaign between Chattanooga
and the sea. Rhodes’s _History of the United States_, Vol. IV.,
chap, xxiii., gives an admirable account of the political
situation. See also various biographies of Lee, especially those
by General A. L. Long and General Fitzhugh Lee, as well as the
_Southern Historical Society Papers_ and General Joseph E.
Johnston’s _Narrative of Military Operations_. Individual
battles are described with great particularity in _Battles and
Leaders of the Civil War_, in Dodge’s _View_, in _Old South
Leaflets_, Vol. III., No. 5, and in Longstreet’s _Memoirs of the
Civil War in America_. See also, for an account of the battle of
Mobile, Maclay’s _History of the United States Navy_, Vol. II.,
553-573. For Lincoln’s reëlection, see Stanwood’s _Elections_,
236-252. See also _Battles and Leaders of the Civil War_, Vol.
III., 97, Vol. IV., 247-663; _Old South Leaflets_, Vol. III.,
No. 5; Dodge’s _View_, 270-292, 302-309; J. C. Schwab, _The
Confederate States of America_ (1901).
-----
[245] The Union losses in the Wilderness were 17,666; at Spottsylvania,
18,399; about the North Anna, 3986; at Cold Harbor, 12,737; in
Sheridan’s expeditions, 2141. Total Union losses from the Wilderness to
the James, 54,929. See _Battles and Leaders of the Civil War_, Vol. IV.,
p. 182. The Union armies operating against Richmond from May 24, 1861,
to May 5, 1864, lost 143,925 men; between May 5, 1864, and April 9,
1865, 124,390. See Dana, _Recollections of the Civil War_, p. 211. The
Confederate returns have not been preserved, hence their exact losses
cannot be given.
[246] Born in New Hampshire, 1818; died, 1893. Graduated at Waterville
College (Colby), Maine, 1838; admitted to bar, 1840; became a prominent
Democratic politician in Massachusetts; entered Civil War as brigadier
general of militia; made major general and given command of the
Department of Eastern Virginia; inaugurated policy of holding slaves as
“contraband of war”; coöperated with Farragut in capture of New Orleans,
1862; governed the city until December, 1862; commanded Army of the
James, 1864; in Congress, as a Republican, 1866–1879, except for the
years 1875–1877; was frequently a candidate for the governorship of
Massachusetts, and obtained it in 1882.
[247] The Union army, May 1, numbered 98,797; June 1, it had been
reënforced to 112,819; August 1, it had 91,675; September 1, 81,758. The
Confederate army, April 30, contained 52,992; before June 10, it had
been reënforced to 84,328. These figures are from the official reports
on file in the War Department. See _Battles and Leaders of the Civil
War_, Vol. III., pp. 282-289.
[248] Johnston was a very able general, but, like William III., he was
more successful in defense than in offense. It is noteworthy that he and
his great opponent, Sherman, were and remained fast friends.
[249] It should be noted that Davis had been trained at West Point, was
a soldier of ability, and interfered too much in the management of the
Confederate armies. Lincoln interfered somewhat, but, being without
military training, fortunately distrusted himself in this respect.
[250] Born in Kentucky, 1831; died, 1879. Graduated at West Point, 1853;
entered the Confederate service and soon commanded a Texas brigade; was
promoted for gallantry at Gaines’s Mill; fought bravely in other
important battles; reënforced Bragg at Chickamauga; commanded a corps
under Johnston, whom he superseded; was three times defeated by Sherman,
and then, turning upon Thomas, was defeated at Franklin and routed at
Nashville.
[251] Atlanta was then very unimportant in size, but it was almost the
only manufacturing town from which the Confederates could obtain
military supplies; hence the significance of the capture.
[252] Hood’s loss at Franklin was 6252, while Schofield’s was only 2326.
See _Battles and Leaders of the Civil War_, Vol. III., p. 257.
[253] At Nashville, Hood’s losses were roughly estimated at 15,000, no
official returns in detail being made. Thomas’s losses were 3057. See
_Battles and Leaders of the Civil War_, Vol. III., p. 258.
[254] August 23, Lincoln wrote this memorandum, which, though unsigned,
was found in his handwriting after his death: “This morning, as for some
time past, it seems exceedingly probable that this administration will
not be reëlected. Then it will be my duty to so coöperate with the
President-elect as to save the Union between the election and the
inauguration, as he will have secured his election on such grounds that
he cannot possibly save it afterward.”
[255] As a campaign document, Buchanan Read’s spirited poem, _Sheridan’s
Ride_, written on the impulse of the moment, was of importance, as it
made the nation ring with the praises of Sheridan’s great exploit.
[256] The circumstances attending this singular action are given by
Charles A. Dana in his _Recollections of the Civil War_, pp. 175-178.
The ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment was announced by Secretary
Seward on December 18, 1865. Eleven former slaveholding states joined
sixteen free states to make the twenty-seven states necessary to
ratification.
CHAPTER XXXI.
=END OF THE WAR, 1865.=
MOVEMENTS OF SHERMAN AND GRANT.
=547. Efforts to Secure Peace by Negotiation.=—Throughout the year 1864
there had been attempts in the North, as well as in the South, to bring
about negotiations for peace. These attempts culminated in February,
1865, when President Lincoln and Secretary Seward met Alexander H.
Stephens[257] and two companions, on a steamer in Hampton Roads, for an
amicable discussion of the situation. Lincoln refused to negotiate
except on the basis of a disbanding of the Confederate forces and a
restoration of the national authority. Stephens attempted to convince
Lincoln that he would be justified in treating with “rebels,” and
referred to the case of Charles I. in England. Lincoln replied that he
was not strong in history but relied upon Seward for all such knowledge;
what he specially remembered of that contest was that “Charles I. lost
his head.” The negotiations came to nothing.
=548. Sherman’s Advance.=—There was enough activity of the Federal
troops in the Southwest during the early spring of 1865 to prevent any
important movements of the Confederates to reënforce Lee, and
accordingly interest was concentrated in the campaigns of Sherman and
Grant. Sherman broke camp in Savannah, February 1, and at once moved
northward. In the course of his march, Sherman passed through Columbia,
South Carolina, and while the army was there the city was burned. Each
side has accused the other of the act; but the facts have never been
determined beyond dispute.[258] In order to strengthen the army under
Johnston, whom Davis had felt obliged to reinstate, the Confederates
evacuated Charleston, thus giving their last port into the hands of the
Federals. Johnston had collected about thirty thousand men, but he did
not venture an engagement until Sherman had advanced nearly as far north
as Goldsboro. The winter rains had not subsided, and Sherman’s forces
encountered very great difficulties. Near Goldsboro, March 16, and again
March 19, Johnston attacked with vigor, but the Confederates were driven
back, and Sherman entered the town, March 23. Here he received
reënforcements from Wilmington. Johnston was now in no condition to meet
the augmented Union army, and Sherman seems to have wished not to push
his advantage until he knew the results of the movements about Richmond.
=549. Cavalry Movements of Wilson and Stoneman.=—While Sherman was
advancing in North Carolina, two cavalry expeditions were ordered by
Grant to set out from Thomas’s army in Nashville,—one for Alabama,
under General J. H. Wilson, and one under General Stoneman for East
Tennessee and Virginia. The purpose of these expeditions was not only to
clear the regions visited of Confederate stores and troops, but also to
prevent Lee and Davis from escaping toward the west or south. Stoneman,
having rapidly completed his work in East Tennessee, destroyed the
important depot of Confederate supplies at Lynchburg, late in March, and
on the 9th of April captured and destroyed the large military magazines
at Salisbury, North Carolina. Wilson devastated much of Alabama; and on
the 2d of April met and dispersed Forrest’s last available force near
Selma, where he completely destroyed a great arsenal of arms and stores.
The dwindling Confederate force in Richmond was now confronted in four
directions.
[Illustration: GENERAL PHILIP H. SHERIDAN.]
=550. Grant’s Advance.=—Grant began his campaign by a further movement
south of Petersburg, January 31, when he took possession of Hatcher’s
Run. While attracting the attention of Lee at this point, he sent
Sheridan,[259] with an army of ten thousand picked cavalry, up the
Shenandoah Valley, for the purpose of cutting the Lynchburg and Richmond
railroad, by which Lee was receiving the larger part of his supplies.
Sheridan scattered the forces of Early and was completely successful.
Returning by way of Charlottesville, Sheridan rejoined Grant, March 29,
and was at once put in command of the extreme left of the Union army,
with orders to push on around the Confederate left, to Five Forks. This
movement obliged Lee to extend his line to that point, but, as he now
had only about fifty thousand men with whom to contend against the one
hundred and twenty thousand commanded by Grant, it was impossible to
protect Richmond in the north and to guard his communications at the
south. The Confederate lines were so long that Lee hardly had one
thousand men to a mile. He therefore, after his lines had been broken at
Five Forks, April 1, decided to abandon the city.
[Illustration: SIGNATURES TO THE AGREEMENT FOR THE
SURRENDER.]
=551. Surrenders of Lee and Johnston.=—With the attack of Sheridan on
the extreme left, Grant ordered an assault, April 2, all along the line.
Lee found that the only way to save his army was not only to abandon
Richmond, but to withdraw rapidly to the west. He had wished to abandon
the capital before, but had deferred to the wishes of Davis. On the
morning of April 3, the Union troops entered Richmond without
opposition. Lee and his army turned westward, but the advance of
Sheridan was so rapid that escape was impossible. Great blunders were
committed by the Confederate commissariat, and Lee’s forces were almost
without food. At Appomattox Courthouse, further retreat was cut off, and
on the 9th of April Lee surrendered his army to Grant at an interview
between the two commanders which brought out the best qualities of each.
Lee’s troops were required only to bear no more arms against the United
States; and they were allowed to retain their horses for spring plowing.
Never before at the end of a great war had such magnanimous terms been
given. On the retreat from Richmond, many men had thrown away their arms
and taken to the woods, so that the number finally surrendered was only
twenty-eight thousand, three hundred and fifty-six. After a sharp
dispute between Sherman and Stanton, as to the conditions that should be
granted, Johnston capitulated to Sherman, on similar terms, April 26.
All the other Confederate armies surrendered before the end of May.
THE DEATH OF PRESIDENT LINCOLN.
[Illustration: HOUSE AT APPOMATTOX IN WHICH LEE
AND GRANT ARRANGED THE SURRENDER.]
=552. Assassination of Lincoln.=—While the people of the North were
everywhere rejoicing over the termination of the war, they were suddenly
cast into the deepest grief by an event of the utmost horror. A
conspiracy to assassinate the President was successful. On the evening
of April 14, President Lincoln was sitting in a private box at one end
of the stage in Ford’s theater. Between two of the acts, John Wilkes
Booth, an actor, stole into the box and, from the rear, shot the
President through the head. Then leaping out from the front of the box
upon the stage in full view of the audience, he shouted, “_Sic semper
tyrannis_” (“Ever thus to tyrants,”—the motto of Virginia), and passing
through a rear door of the stage, escaped. In the midst of the
excitement that ensued, the President was tenderly carried to a
neighboring house, where he received every possible surgical aid, but no
effort could save his life. He expired the next morning. Booth in his
leap to the stage injured one of his legs, but he succeeded in mounting
a horse that was in waiting, and crossed one of the bridges into
Virginia. For several days he evaded his pursuers; but the whole region
was in arms, and he was finally brought to bay. Refusing to give himself
up, he was shot by a Union soldier. On the evening that Lincoln was
shot, one of the other conspirators entered the house of Secretary
Seward and attacked him in bed with a huge bowie-knife. Though
desperately wounded, Seward finally recovered. Of the conspirators
arrested, four were hanged and four imprisoned. It is still a question
whether, in the prevalent excitement, injustice was not done in some of
these executions.
=553. Funeral of Lincoln.=—The grief of the people was unprecedented.
The greatness of Lincoln’s life and the pathos of his death touched
every heart. His body was taken for interment to Springfield, Illinois;
and so universal was the love and sorrow, that the people insisted upon
making the movement a national event. At New York and other important
points along the route, his body lay in state and was viewed by millions
of people. Three weeks were required for the funeral train to reach
Springfield.
=554. Lincoln’s Policy toward the South.=—The people of the South
showed something of the grief of the North, for many had already begun
to see that in war Lincoln had not been a harsh enemy, and that in peace
he was likely to be a real friend. They very naturally felt that the
murder of the President would probably make the people of the North
harsher toward the South, now that the victory had been secured. They
did not at that time know what has since been revealed of Lincoln’s
generous feeling toward them. At a Cabinet meeting on the very day of
his assassination he had discussed the reconstruction of the South.
“Enough lives have been sacrificed,” he said; “we must extinguish our
resentment, if we expect harmony and union.”
THE MAGNITUDE OF THE WAR.
=555. The Army and the Navy.=—The Union army had grown steadily in
numbers, until at the close of the war the lists showed an enrollment of
1,000,516 men, of whom more than six hundred thousand were fit for
active service.[260] The Union navy had grown until it consisted of
about seven hundred vessels, of which sixty were ironclads. It was at
that time the most powerful navy in the world.
=556. Extent of the Losses.=—The Union forces had 44,236 killed in
battle, while 49,205 died from wounds. Those who died of disease
numbered 186,216. In prison and from accidents and unknown causes, the
deaths were 50,352, making a sum total of 330,009. There were buried in
the national cemeteries the bodies of 318,870, but a considerable number
of these were Confederate soldiers. The number of deaths in the
Confederate service was less, but figures have not been so carefully
preserved, and the exact truth can, probably, never be known. The number
of actions in the course of the war of sufficient importance to receive
names was no less than twenty-four hundred.
=557. The Cost of the War.=—The cost of the war was enormous; but it
cannot be accurately told. In addition to about $780,000,000 that had
been paid by taxation, while the contest was going on, the national debt
had, from $65,000,000, in June, 1861, grown in 1865 to be
$2,850,000,000. If to this vast sum we add the debts of states and
cities, and the pensions that were paid before 1900, the total cost of
the war to the country, exclusive of expenditures by the Confederates,
can hardly have been less than ten billions of dollars.
=558. Suffering.=—In the South the suffering in consequence of the war
was vastly greater than in the North. The freeing of four million slaves
completely changed the organization of society. Wherever the Northern
armies had gone, there had been great destruction of property and
thousands of homes had been ruined. Throughout the later years of the
war there had been much suffering of individual families, and the
sources of income of many that had previously known independence or
affluence, had been entirely taken away. When emancipation took place,
the suffering was somewhat increased, although, as a rule, the negroes
showed remarkable fidelity to their owners.
=559. Final Review.=—On the 23d and 24th of May such parts of the
Armies of the East and of the West as were within reach, had the
privilege of passing in review before their commanders and the
representatives of the nation. For two whole days the armies filled the
long stretch of Pennsylvania Avenue from the Capitol to Georgetown, and,
in a compact mass, from curbstone to curbstone, passed in front of the
reviewing stand at the White House. The spectacle was the mightiest the
continent had ever seen; but it was much more than a spectacle. It was a
vast army of citizens peaceably going home after the most bloody and
terrible of modern wars. Of the more than a million Union soldiers under
arms in the spring of 1865, before the next winter all but about fifty
thousand had been quietly mustered out and become, in the main, orderly
and industrious citizens.
=560. The Military Lessons of the War.=—As time has passed, students
have learned that the military lessons taught by the war were numerous
and important. Four of them are especially worthy of note.
(1) The battle between the _Monitor_ and the _Merrimac_ convinced every
one that wooden vessels could no longer be of any service against ships
of iron. In less than a generation, every navy of importance in the
world was made up exclusively of iron ships.
(2) The habit of instantly throwing up protecting intrenchments,
whenever either army came to a halt near the other, completely
revolutionized military field practice.
(3) More important still was the lesson that military training of
officers cannot be dispensed with in any nation. The successful
commanders of the war in the North, as well as in the South, were,
almost without exception, officers who had been trained in the military
schools. In the early part of the contest, especially in the North, men
with political influence were often put into responsible positions; but
such appointments generally proved disastrous, and the authorities had
to fill their places with men who had received a careful military
training.
(4) But the greatest lesson of all was taught by the rapidity with which
a great army could be put into the field in an emergency, and then
quietly disbanded. Stanton, in his report as Secretary of War in 1865,
called attention to several remarkable facts in this connection. After
the disaster in the Peninsula more than eighty thousand troops were
enlisted, organized, equipped, and sent into the field in less than
thirty days. Sixty thousand new troops repeatedly went into the field
within four weeks; and from Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin
ninety thousand men were raised and sent into the armies within twenty
days.[261] These facts showed that a large standing army is unnecessary
in a self-governing nation.
=561. The French in Mexico.=—The immense military power and prestige of
the United States were soon illustrated in a striking manner. Throughout
the war the imperial government of France, under Napoleon III., was in
active sympathy with the effort to destroy the Union. When Napoleon III.
found that Great Britain would not, as he desired, acknowledge the
independence of the Confederacy, he turned his attention in another
direction, and stirred up a revolution in Mexico, which overthrew the
Republican form of government and established an empire under
Maximilian, an Archduke of Austria. While the United States government
was at war, it was in no condition to do more than to issue a formal
protest; but when the war was over, and there were a million men
available, France perceived the advisability of withdrawing her troops
from Mexico at the suggestion of the United States. With a courage
worthy of a better cause, Maximilian refused to withdraw with them. The
Mexicans soon revolted, and in 1867, the emperor was taken prisoner and
shot. The United States government entreated for his life, but the
request was formally refused.
* * * * *
REFERENCES.—The end of the war is described from both points of
view in _Battles and Leaders of the Civil War_, Vol. IV., p.
708, and in a briefer manner in Dodge’s _View_, pp. 310-319. For
Lincoln’s attitude in regard to all questions, see Tarbell’s
_Lincoln_, Vol. II., and Nicolay and Hay, Vols. IX.–X. The works
already named may all be consulted with profit in regard to this
period. For the Confederate side, see, especially, Davis, _Rise
and Fall_; Stephens, _War between the States_; Johnston,
_Narrative_; and Longstreet, _Memoirs of the Civil War in
America_. See also Thomas Nelson Page’s stories, and especially
his short story, _Burying of the Guns_, for graphic and
instructive pictures of war-time.
-----
[257] Vice President Stephens had not been in favor of the war, and had
been more or less opposed to the administrative methods of President
Davis, who, although he had a Cabinet and a Congress, became through
force of circumstances virtually a dictator.
[258] The latest, fullest, and fairest discussion of the matter is given
by J. F. Rhodes in _The American Historical Review_ for April, 1902.
Much of the lamentable suffering seems chargeable rather to drunken
soldiers and camp followers than to the orders of commanders.
[259] Born in New York, 1831; died, 1888. Graduated at West Point, 1853;
received a cavalry command in 1862; distinguished himself at Perryville
and Stone River; fought with great gallantry at Chickamauga and
Chattanooga; was given command of a cavalry corps by Grant in 1864;
defeated Early at Winchester and Fisher’s Hill, and, October 19, 1864,
performed one of the notable feats of the war by riding from “Winchester
twenty miles away” and turning defeat into victory at Cedar Creek; took
a leading part in the final attack on Lee’s army in April, 1865; was
made lieutenant general in 1869; succeeded Sherman as general in chief,
1883; general in 1888.
[260] In the course of the war, as many as 2,690,401 men entered the
Union army, and probably about one-half as many were enrolled by the
Confederacy.
[261] _Congressional Globe_, Appendix 1865–1866, pp. 10-11.
CHAPTER XXXII.
=THE ADMINISTRATION OF JOHNSON: RECONSTRUCTION, 1865–1869.=
DIFFERENT POLICIES OF RECONSTRUCTION.
=562. President Johnson.=—Andrew Johnson,[262] a Democrat from
Tennessee, was the only Southern senator who refused to resign his place
when, in 1861, the other senators withdrew from Congress. Partly because
he was such a stanch Unionist, and partly because the Republicans
desired to develop a Union sentiment in the South, he was elected as
Vice President on the ticket with Lincoln, in 1864, and in consequence
became President on the death of the latter.
=563. Lincoln’s Reconstruction Policy.=—Lincoln, with his customary
foresight, some time before the end of the war, had set forth his ideas
on the policy of the reconstruction of the seceded states. He expressed
the opinion, in an address, that the question whether the “seceded
states,” so-called, were in the Union or out of it, was “a mere
pernicious abstraction”; that “they were out of their proper practical
relation with the Union,” and that “the sole object of those in
authority should be again to get them into that proper practical
relation.” With the exception of certain classes, he had previously by
proclamation offered pardon to all persons who should take the oath to
support the Constitution and the laws, and he had promised that as soon
as one-tenth of the voters in any state (according to the registration
of 1860) should take this oath and establish a government of republican
form, the Federal authorities would recognize it as a legal state
government. Arkansas and Louisiana had been reorganized on this basis,
though the reorganization proved, in the end, unsuccessful, owing to the
fact that Congress refused to recognize the governments thus set up.
[Illustration: ANDREW JOHNSON.]
=564. Johnson’s Policy of Reconstruction.=—The accession of Johnson
somewhat modified this policy, and this modification has generally been
regarded as calamitous to the South. But it should be said that
Johnson’s policy was not so different in essentials from that of Lincoln
as it was in method and spirit. Johnson was utterly lacking in the tact
that is always requisite to the successful leadership of men, and
consequently he was soon at odds with Congress. It should also be noted
that Congress fell under the influence of its radical members,
especially Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens, and became more extreme
in its methods as soon as the staying and guiding hand of Lincoln was
removed.
=565. Difficult Questions.=—Though the war was virtually over when
Johnson came into authority as President, he found many difficult
questions to consider and decide. One of the first was to determine what
should be done with the political leaders of the Confederacy. In the
mountainous region of Eastern Kentucky and Tennessee, where Johnson had
lived, the Union sentiment was so strong that the conflict between the
Unionists and Confederates was greatly embittered. Johnson now showed
much of this spirit of bitterness. In striking contrast with Lincoln, he
took the position that the leaders of the Confederacy should be put to
death. Apparently with this purpose in view, he offered a reward of one
hundred thousand dollars for the capture of Jefferson Davis, and smaller
sums for the capture of other Confederate leaders. After a long and
difficult pursuit, Davis was captured in Georgia by two troops of
General Wilson’s cavalry, in May, 1865. He was sent to Fortress Monroe,
where he was kept a prisoner for two years. As other members of the
Confederate government were taken, they were sent to various forts to
await the action of Congress. The influence of Seward in favor of a mild
policy, and the doubtful issue of the complicated constitutional cases
that would have come before the courts, finally brought it to pass that
no Confederate leader was tried for his life. This treatment of the
vanquished contrasts favorably with the methods pursued at the end of
the Revolutionary War in dealing with the Tories.
=566. Difficulties of Reconstruction.=—A far more difficult question to
be determined was that of the judicious reëstablishment of government in
the seceded states. This difficulty was partly the inevitable
consequence of a great civil war,[263] and partly the result of the
peculiar circumstances in which the North and the South were now placed.
The white men of the South had been at war against the Union, and the
slaves had been set free. Should the former slave owners at once be
allowed to vote? Should the negroes be given a vote? These were
questions of the utmost importance, because the emancipation of slaves,
adopted as a military measure, carried with it no authority to prevent
the reënslaving of negroes after the war was over (§ 546). It was
generally felt in the North that if the old master should be allowed to
vote and the freedman should not be given that privilege, there would be
no assurance that slavery in one form or another would not be
reëstablished. The South, on the other hand, believed that to give the
suffrage to unqualified masses of blacks would be unnecessary and
intolerable. It seemed to be impossible to reconcile the two views on
this question, and consequently the course to be taken was naturally
determined by the party in power. Moreover, the leading minds of the
Republican party believed that the negro could be thoroughly protected
only by constitutional amendments which would make it impossible for the
united Democrats of the North and the South to alter whatever measures
in his behalf had been taken by Congress.
=567. Differences between President and Congress.=—While a majority of
the people of the North were determined to prevent the possibility of
any form of domination over the negroes, the President, as a Southern
Democrat, cared less for the freedom of negroes than he did for the
right of the white men in the individual Southern states to settle their
own affairs. Johnson, therefore, was determined that the Confederate
states should come back into the Union under the leadership of their
white voters. This would mean, of course, the leadership of those who
had recently been at war against the Union, and to such a result the
Republican members of Congress were strongly opposed.
=568. Provisional Governors.=—The President began his policy by the
appointment of a provisional governor for each of the seceded states.
This governor called conventions whose members were to be elected by
such of the former voters as should take the oath of loyalty contained
in the Proclamation of Amnesty. The conventions showed their loyalty to
the Union by repealing the Ordinances of Secession, by voting that no
debt should ever be paid that had been incurred by the Confederacy, and
by ratifying the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which
prohibited slavery forever in the country (§ 546). But, on the other
hand, some of them also passed laws to force the freedmen to work, under
penalty of imprisonment as vagrants. To the people of the North this
unfortunately looked like an attempt to set up slavery under another
form. It was probably not so intended, but showed at least great
indiscretion.
=569. Refusal of Admission to Congress.=—When Congress met in December,
1865, the members refused to admit the representatives that had been
sent from the seceded states. They asserted, moreover, that the seceded
states were not in the Union and must be readmitted before their acts
could have authority, and before they could have representation in
Congress. Tennessee was readmitted, and representatives from this state
were received in Congress in 1866, but no other representatives from
seceded states were received until nearly two years later. The President
argued that Congress had no more right to keep a state out of Congress
than a state had to secede, and in this position he was generally
supported by the Northern Democrats.
=570. The Elections of 1866.=—The future of reconstruction seemed to
turn on the result of the elections in the fall of 1866. The Republicans
won a large majority of seats, and the Republican members of the
outgoing Congress elected in 1864, who had a two-thirds majority,
secured through representation of the border states and denial of
representation to the seceded states, saw at once that for the next two
years they would be able to control legislation by passing measures over
the President’s veto. Emboldened by this fact, they now proceeded to
adopt their own plan of reconstruction without waiting for the next
Congress.
[Illustration: THADDEUS STEVENS.]
=571. Congressional Plan of Reconstruction.=—Many theories were held
with regard to the status of the commonwealths that had seceded. Some
persons held that they were conquered provinces; others that they had
lost their statehood and become territories. Others held that the
Southern states had committed suicide, as it were, and that the Federal
Constitution and laws did not apply to them, and would not until
Congress declared them once more in force. This theory prevailed in the
Congressional plan of reconstruction, which was pushed forward by
Thaddeus Stevens,[264] of Pennsylvania, chairman of the Reconstruction
Committee and of the Committee on Ways and Means, and was adopted in the
spring of 1867. It provided that the negroes should vote, and that the
Confederate leaders should not vote. To insure the permanent effects of
these results, the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution was adopted
by Congress, and was ratified July 28, 1868, by the necessary majority
of three-fourths of the states.
=572. The Fourteenth Amendment.=—While the Thirteenth Amendment to the
Constitution forever prohibited slavery within the United States and its
dependencies, the Fourteenth Amendment excluded from Congress and from
all civil or military offices in the United States all persons who,
after having taken the oath to support the Constitution of the United
States, should “have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the
same, or given aid and comfort to the enemies thereof,” until Congress,
by a two-thirds vote of each House, should remove such disability. The
Fourteenth Amendment thus had the stupendous effect of disqualifying
from holding office all the most prominent Southern leaders. It also
guaranteed civil and political rights to the negroes, under national and
state governments, and declared invalid all debts and obligations
incurred by the states that had seceded.
=573. Methods of Reconstruction.=—On the basis of these general
purposes the work of reconstruction was carried on in the years 1867 and
1868. Provision was made for civil governments in each of the states of
the former Confederacy, and for the establishment of live military
departments, whose special duty it was to see that the requirements of
Congress in the reconstruction of the state governments were carried
out.
EFFECTS OF RECONSTRUCTION.
=574. Irritation in the South.=—This plan of government was naturally
very offensive to the South, for it made the negroes practically rulers
over their former owners. In June, 1868, the representatives of Alabama,
Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, North Carolina, and South Carolina were
elected under the new conditions and readmitted to Congress. Those of
Georgia, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia were not admitted before 1870.
During the first period of reconstruction the freedmen in the South were
generally in control; but the former slaves were ignorant of political
affairs, and had always been in the habit of acting as they were
directed. At first they were under the influence of the military
governments and of the “Carpet Baggers,” and voted solidly against the
whites; but gradually they yielded to the persuasions of the people who
employed them.
=575. “Carpet Baggers” and “Scalawags.”=—The Northerners who moved into
the South after the war for the purpose of securing office through negro
votes were popularly known as “Carpet Baggers”; and the Southern whites
who voted with the negroes were given the name of “Scalawags.” Between
the “Carpet Baggers” and “Scalawags” on the one hand, and the old
inhabitants on the other, there was bitter warfare, resulting in murders
on both sides. The condition of the South during this administration and
the one following showed how nearly impossible it is, even under
military rule, to enforce any laws in a community where such laws are
earnestly opposed by a majority or even by a large portion of the
intelligent citizens. The whites were, for the most part, determined not
to let the government fall into the hands of negroes; and when the
blacks abstained from taking part in the government they were generally
not interfered with. In many localities they were aided and encouraged
in their efforts for improvement; but society in the Southern states
found it hard to adapt itself to the new conditions. The determination
that negroes should not rule was so deep-seated that the purposes of the
government were frustrated in many ways.
=576. The “Ku-Klux-Klan.”=—A secret society, known as the
“Ku-Klux-Klan,” was organized, the object of which was to counteract the
influence of “Carpet Baggers,” and to make it impossible for Northern
men to get control of local affairs. Many Northern men were secretly
seized, and some even put to death, and, for a considerable time, in
many parts of the South, something like a reign of terror prevailed.
Gradually, however, a better feeling was developed; but this was not
until both whites and blacks came to see that the welfare of the negroes
would be better served by industrial and educational than by political
methods. This belief was slow in coming; and it was not until the
administration of President Hayes, about ten years later, that order and
some measure of prosperity were established.
JOHNSON AND CONGRESS.
=577. Strained Relations of President and Congress.=—While these
conditions greatly agitated society throughout the South, the relations
of the President and Congress were becoming more and more strained. Many
acts were passed over the executive veto.[265] The President kept up the
irritation by freely and offensively accusing the members of keeping
Southern representatives out of Congress in order that they might pass
measures over his veto. His arguments were often powerful, but his lack
of tact prevented him from winning men to his views. Matters were
brought to a crisis by the passage of the “Tenure of Office Act” in the
early part of 1867.
[Illustration: HORATIO SEYMOUR.]
=578. The Tenure of Office Act.=—Under the Constitution the President
makes appointments with the advice and consent of the Senate. The
Constitution is silent in regard to the power of removals; but in 1789
it was decided that removals did not require the approval of the Senate,
but could be made solely at the discretion of the President. This was
the rule until March, 1867, when Congress passed over the President’s
veto the “Tenure of Office Act,” which provided in substance that no
person whose appointment required the approval of the Senate could be
dismissed without the same approval. In August, 1867, Johnson requested
the resignation of the Secretary of War, Edwin M. Stanton, who was in
sympathy with Congress rather than with the President. Stanton refused
to resign and was suspended, General Grant taking his place. When
Congress met the suspension was not ratified, and Grant resigned and
Stanton resumed the duties of Secretary. Johnson, who regarded the
Tenure of Office Act as unconstitutional, then removed him. Stanton,
when the Senate had pronounced the removal illegal, refused to give up
his office and appealed to the House of Representatives.
=579. Impeachment of the President.=—The House, in which a similar
attempt had already failed, at once resolved to impeach the President,
by accusing him of having violated the laws and of being unfit to hold
his office. According to the Constitution, when such a vote takes place,
a trial must be held before the Senate as judges. The Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court is to preside, and, in order to remove the President,
two-thirds of the Senators present must vote that he is guilty of the
crimes or misdemeanors charged against him. Johnson’s trial, which began
on March 5, 1868, was conducted with great ability on both sides, by
several of the ablest lawyers in the country. In the test vote, taken on
May 16, thirty-five senators pronounced him guilty, and nineteen not
guilty, five Republicans not voting with their party. As the number
thirty-five was less than the requisite two-thirds, the vote was legally
an acquittal of the President, and Secretary Stanton resigned.[266]
While the trial was in progress, Johnson made his famous “Swinging round
the Circle” tour in the Northwest and delivered extreme speeches against
Congress.
=580. Election of General Grant.=—The Presidential election of 1868
turned upon the policy of the government in regard to reconstruction.
The Republican party, generally supporting the policy of Congress,
nominated with enthusiasm and unanimity, General Ulysses S. Grant and
Schuyler Colfax of Indiana. The Democrats, opposing that policy, put in
the field Horatio Seymour[267] of New York and Frank P. Blair of
Missouri. The election resulted in two hundred and fourteen electoral
votes for the Republican candidates, and eighty for the Democratic.
Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia, not having been readmitted, could not
vote.
* * * * *
REFERENCES.—Wilson, _Division and Reunion_, 254-300; Dunning,
_Essays on the Civil War and Reconstruction_; Johnson, _American
Politics_, 207-279; Blaine, _Twenty Years in Congress_; Landon,
_Constitutional History_; Gorham, _Life of E. M. Stanton_;
Schouler, _United States_, Vol. VI.; McCall, _Thaddeus Stevens_;
Storey, _Charles Sumner_; Hart, _Salmon P. Chase_ (in “American
Statesmen” series); J. W. Burgess, _Reconstruction and the
Constitution_ (1902). See also a series of articles in the
_Atlantic Monthly_ for 1901, and W. P. Trent, “A New South View
of Reconstruction,” in the _Sewanee Review_, January, 1901;
Channing and Hart, _Guide_, § 25.
On the condition of affairs in the South, from the Northern
point of view, see Tourgee’s _Fool’s Errand_, and also his
_Bricks without Straw_. For a discriminating Southern view, see
Thomas Nelson Page’s _Red Rock_.
On this period and on those that follow, the histories are few
and not conclusive. Reliance for sources must be placed on the
current literature and on such books as McPherson’s _Handbooks_,
Appleton’s _Annual Cyclopædia_, Mulhall’s _Dictionary of
Statistics_, Shaler’s _United States_, and the writings of the
leading statesmen as indicated in Channing and Hart’s _Guide_.
-----
[262] Born in North Carolina, 1808; died, 1875. Settled in Tennessee; a
tailor by trade; became a member of Congress, 1843–1853; governor of
Tennessee, 1853–1857; United States senator, 1857–1862; was a strong
Unionist, and was appointed by Lincoln military governor of Tennessee;
though a Democrat, was nominated for Vice President with Lincoln in
1864, and elected; became President on the death of Lincoln, in 1865;
continued to hold many Democratic principles and soon was opposed to the
Republican Congress; vetoed many acts of Congress; was impeached in
1867, but the impeachment failed by one less than a two-thirds majority;
returned to Tennessee and was defeated for the Senate and the House, but
finally elected to the Senate shortly before his death.
[263] Note, as examples, the turbulent events that followed the English
civil war of the seventeenth century and the great civil war known as
the French Revolution.
[264] Born in Vermont, 1793; died, 1868. Graduated at Dartmouth;
practiced law in Pennsylvania; Whig member of Congress, 1849–1853, when
he strenuously opposed the Compromise of 1850; Republican member,
1859–1868, of a radical type and great influence; advocated very severe
measures during the reconstruction period; urged emancipation, the
Fourteenth Amendment, the Acts of Confiscation, and the impeachment of
President Johnson.
[265] Among these may be enumerated the Civil Rights Bill, which gave
the negroes citizenship with suffrage (1866), and the Second Freedmen’s
Bureau Bill, which was designed to help the former slaves by securing
them employment and in other ways (1866). The Fourteenth Amendment was
also disapproved by the President, and, of course, the congressional
plan of reconstruction. Congress, by a “rider” to the Army Appropriation
Bill, really deprived the President of his power as commander in chief;
and by adopting measures which enabled a new Congress to meet
immediately after the expiration of its predecessor, took away from the
President all opportunity to act upon his own judgment during the
interim between Congresses. In other words, the radical members of
Congress were so determined to carry out their policy that in the two
measures last enumerated and in the Tenure of Office Act they overleaped
the Constitution and practically set up a revolutionary government of
their own. On the other hand, the President’s breach of courtesy in
delivering harangues against Congress, at various points in the country,
was highly exasperating.
[266] That the Tenure of Office Act, which was partly the cause of the
disgraceful final clash between the President and Congress, was a
partisan and unwise measure is proved by the fact that it was soon
modified, and that in 1887 it was repealed.
[267] Born in New York, 1810; died, 1886. Was military secretary of
Governor Marcy; as assemblyman, mayor of Utica, and Speaker of the
Assembly, he became very prominent as Democratic leader: was governor of
New York, 1853–1855, after having been defeated as candidate in 1850;
also governor, 1863–1865; supported the Union during the War, but in a
spirit that provoked much criticism, as did, notably, his speech to the
rioters in New York City in 1863; presided over Democratic Convention in
1868, and, against his will, was nominated for President; was defeated
by General Grant.
PART VII.
PERIOD OF NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT,
1869–1902.
* * * * *