CHAPTER VI TESTING THE ISSUE

The die is now cast; the colonies must either submit or triumph.--George

III.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal,

that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable

Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of

Happiness.--Thomas Jefferson.

Two months and ten days after Mr. Hutchinson embarked for England, John

Adams, the Hon. Thomas Cushing, Mr. Samuel Adams, and Robert Treat Paine

set out "from Boston, from Mr. Cushing's house, and rode to Coolidge's,

where they dined ... with a large company of gentlemen, who went out

and prepared an entertainment for them at that place. A most kindly and

affectionate meeting we had, and about four in the afternoon we took

leave of them, amidst the kindest wishes and fervent prayers of every

man in the company for our health and success. The scene was truly

affecting, beyond all description affecting." The four men who in

this manner left Boston on the 10th of August, 1774, were bound for

Philadelphia to attend the first Continental Congress. Even Samuel

Adams, in excellent spirits, a little resplendent and doubtless a little

uncomfortable in his new suit and new silk hose, could scarcely have

known that they were about to share in one of the decisive events in the

history of the modern world.

The calling of the Continental Congress had followed hard upon those

recent measures of the British Government which no reasonable man could

doubt were designed to reduce the colonies to a state of slavery. In

May, 1773, the East India Company, whose privileges in India had just

been greatly restricted, was given permission to export tea from its

English warehouses directly to America, free of all English customs and

excise duties. The threepenny duty in America was indeed retained; but

this small tax would not prevent the Company from selling its teas

in America at a lower price than other importers, either smugglers or

legitimate traders, could afford. It was true the Americans were opposed

to the threepenny tax, and they had bound themselves not to import

any dutied tea; yet neither the opposition to the tax nor the

non-importation agreements entered into had prevented American merchants

from importing, during the last three years, about 580,831 pounds of

English tea, upon which the duty had been paid without occasioning much

comment.

With these facts in mind, hard-headed American merchants, to whom the

Company applied for information about the state of the tea trade in the

colonies, assured the directors that the Americans drank a great deal

of tea, which hitherto had been largely smuggled from Holland; and that,

although they were in principle much opposed to the tax, "mankind in

general are bound by interest," and "the Company can afford their teas

cheaper than the Americans can smuggle them from foreigners, which puts

the success of the design beyond a doubt."

The hard-headed merchants were doubtless much surprised at the universal

outcry which was raised when it became known that the East India

Company was preparing to import its teas into the colonies; and yet the

strenuous opposition everywhere exhibited rather confirmed than refuted

the philosophical reflection that "mankind in general are bound by

interest." Neither the New York and Philadelphia merchants who smuggled

tea from Holland, nor the Boston and Charleston merchants who imported

dutied tea from England, could see any advantage to them in having this

profitable business taken over by the East India Company. Mr. Hancock,

for example, was one of the Boston merchants who imported a good deal of

dutied tea from England, a fact which was better known then than it has

been since; and at Philadelphia John Adams was questioned rather closely

about Mr. Hancock's violation of the non-importation agreement, in reply

to which he could only say: "Mr. Hancock, I believe, is justifiable,

but I am not certain whether he is strictly so." Justifiable or not,

Mr. Hancock would not wish to see the entire tea trade of America in the

hands of the East India Company.

And indeed to whose interest would it be to have an English company

granted a monopoly of a thriving branch of American trade? To those,

doubtless, who were the consignees of the Company, such as the sons of

Thomas Hutchinson, or Mr. Abram Lott of New York. Certainly no private

merchant "who is acquainted with the operation of a monopoly ... will

send out or order tea to America when those who have it at first hand

send to the same market." And therefore, since the Company have the

whole supply, America will "ultimately be at their mercy to extort what

price they please for their tea. And when they find their success in

this article, they will obtain liberty to export their spices, silks,

etc." This was the light in which the matter appeared to the New York

Committee of Correspondence.

John Dickinson saw the matter in the same light, a light which his

superior abilities enabled him to portray in more lurid colors. The

conduct of the East India Company in Asia, he said,

has given ample proof how little they regard the laws of nations,

the rights, liberties, or lives of men. They have levied war, excited

rebellions, dethroned princes, and sacrificed millions for the sake of

gain. The revenues of mighty kingdoms have centered in their coffers.

And these not being sufficient to glut their avarice, they have, by the

most unparalleled barbarities, extortions, and monopolies, stripped the

miserable inhabitants of their property and reduced whole provinces to

indigence and ruin ... Thus having drained the sources of that immense

wealth ... they now, it seems, cast their eyes on America, a new

theater, whereon to exercise their talents of rapine, oppression, and

cruelty. The monopoly of tea, is, I dare say, but a small part of the

plan they have formed to strip us of our property. But thank God we

are not Sea Poys, nor Marattas, but British subjects, who are born to

liberty, who know its worth, and who prize it high.

For all of these reasons, therefore--because they were in principle

opposed to taxation without consent, and by interest opposed to an

English company monopolizing the tea trade, and perhaps because they

desired to give a signal demonstration of the fact that they were

neither Sea Poys nor Marattas--Americans were willing to resort to the

use of force in order to maintain their own rights by depriving the East

India Company of its privileges.

When Capt. Curling's ship arrived in Charleston, the people in that

town, assembled to deal with the grave crisis, were somewhat uncertain

what to do with the Company's tea. On the very ship which brought the

Company's tea, there were some chests consigned to private merchants;

and certain enthusiastic patriots attending the meeting of citizens

affirmed that the importation of dutied tea by private merchants

contrary to the non-importation agreement was no less destructive to

liberty than the importation of tea by the East India Company. "All

this," it was said, "evinced a desire of not entering hastily into

measures." In the end, the Company's tea was seized by the Collector and

stored in the vaults under the Exchange. At New York and Philadelphia,

the Company's tea ships were required to return to England without

landing; and it was only at Boston, where Governor Hutchinson, whose

sons had been appointed by the Company as its consignees, refused return

clearance papers, that the tea, some £14,000 worth of it, was thrown

into the harbor.

Throwing the tea into the harbor raised a sharp sense of resentment in

the minds of Britons. The common feeling was that, unless the British

Government was prepared to renounce all pretense of governing the

colonies, something must be done. There were a few, such as Josiah

Tucker, who thought that the thing to do was to give up the colonies;

in their opinion, colonies were in any case more of a burden than an

advantage, the supposed advantages of colonies being bound up with

restrictions on trade, and restrictions on trade being contrary to the

natural law by which commerce should be free. But the natural law was

only a recent discovery not yet widely accepted in England; and it did

not occur to the average Briton that the colonies should be given up.

The colonies, he supposed, were English colonies; and he thought the

time had come to establish that fact. He had heard that the colonies had

grievances. All he knew was that the Government had good-naturedly made

concessions for the last ten years; and as for this new grievance about

tea, the average Briton made out only that the Americans could buy their

tea cheaper than he could himself.

Obviously the time had come for Old England to set the colonies right by

showing less concession and more power. Four regiments, as General

Gage said, would do the business. The average Briton therefore gave his

cordial approval to four "coercive" measures, passed by overwhelming

majorities in Parliament, which remodeled the Massachusetts charter,

authorized the Governor to transfer to courts in other colonies or to

England any cases involving a breach of the peace or the conduct of

public officers, provided for quartering troops on the inhabitants, and

closed the port of Boston until the East India Company should have been

compensated for the loss of its tea. In order to make these measures

effective, General Gage, commander of the American forces, was made

Governor of Massachusetts. To what extent he would find it necessary to

use the military depended upon the Bostonians. "The die is now cast,"

the King wrote to Lord North; "the colonies must either submit or

triumph." The King's judgment was not always good; but it must be

conceded that in this instance he had penetrated to the very center of

the situation.

Massachusetts, very naturally, wished not to submit, but whether she

could triumph without the support of the other colonies was more than

doubtful; and it was to obtain this support, to devise if possible

a method of resistance agreeable to all, that the Congress was now

assembling at Philadelphia. The spirit in which the colonies received

the news of the Boston Port Bill augured well for union, for in every

colony it was felt that this was a challenge which could not be evaded

without giving the lie to ten years of high talk about the inalienable

rights of Englishmen. As Charles James Fox said, "all were taught to

consider the town of Boston as suffering in the common cause." This

sentiment John Adams found everywhere expressed--found everywhere, as

he took his leisurely journey southward, that people were "very firm" in

their determination to support Massachusetts against the oppression of

the British Government.

In respect to the measures which should be adopted to achieve the end

desired, there was not the same unanimity. Mr. Adams, at the age of

thirty-eight years, never having been out of New England, kept his

eyes very wide open as he entered the foreign colonies of New York

and Pennsylvania. In New York he was much impressed with the "elegant

country seats," with the bountiful hospitality, and the lavish way of

living. "A more elegant breakfast I never saw"--this was at Mr. Scott's

house--"rich plate, a very large silver coffee-pot, a very large silver

tea-pot, napkins of the finest materials, toast, and bread and butter

in great perfection," and then, to top it off, "a plate of beautiful

peaches, another of pears, and another of plums, and a musk-melon were

placed upon the table." Nevertheless, in spite of the friendliness

shown to him personally, in spite of the sympathy which, abstractly

considered, the New Yorkers expressed for the sad state of Boston, Mr.

Adams was made to understand that if it came to practical measures

for the support of Massachusetts, many diverse currents of opinion and

interest would make themselves felt.

New York was "very firm" in the cause, certainly, but "Mr. MacDougall

gave a caution to avoid every expression which looked like an allusion

to the last appeal. He says there is a powerful party here who are

intimidated by fears of a civil war, and they have been induced to

acquiesce by assurances that there was no danger, and that a peaceful

cessation of commerce would effect relief. Another party, he says, are

intimidated lest the leveling spirit of the New England colonies

should propagate itself into New York. Another party are instigated by

Episcopalian prejudices against New England. Another party are

merchants largely concerned in navigation, and therefore afraid of

non-importation, non-consumption, and non-exportation agreements.

Another party are those who are looking up to Government for favors."

These interests were doubtless well enough represented by the New York

deputies to the Congress, whom Mr. Adams now saw for the first time. Mr.

Jay, it was said, was a good student of the law and a hard worker. Mr.

Low, "they say, will profess attachment to the cause of liberty, but his

sincerity is doubted." Mr. Alsop was thought to be of good heart, but

unequal, as Mr. Scott affirmed, "to the trust in point of abilities."

Mr. Duane--this was Mr. Adams's own impression--"has a sly, surveying

eye, ... very sensible, I think, and very artful." And finally there

was Mr. Livingston, "a downright, straightforward man" who reminded Mr.

Adams that Massachusetts had once hung some Quakers, affirmed positively

that civil war would follow the renunciation of allegiance to Britain,

and threw out vague hints of the Goths and Vandals.

Confiding these matters to his Diary and keeping his own opinion,

Mr. Adams passed on to Philadelphia. There the Massachusetts men were

cordially welcomed, twice over, but straightway cautioned against two

gentlemen, one of whom was "Dr. Smith, the Provost of the College, who

is looking up to Government for an American Episcopate and a pair

of lawn sleeves"--a very soft, polite man, "insinuating, adulating,

sensible, learned, insidious, indefatigable," with art enough, "and

refinement upon art, to make impressions even upon Mr. Dickinson and Mr.

Reed." In Pennsylvania, as in every colony, Mr. Adams found, there was

a tribe of people "exactly like the tribe, in the Massachusetts, of

Hutchinsonian Addressers." Some of this tribe had managed to elbow their

way into the committees of deputies to the Congress, at least from the

middle colonies, and probably from South Carolina as well.

The "most spirited and consistent of any" of the deputies were the

gentlemen from Virginia, among whom were Mr. Henry and Mr. R. H. Lee,

said to be the Demosthenes and the Cicero of America. The latter, Mr.

Adams liked much, a "masterly man" who was very strong for the most

vigorous measures. But it seemed that even Mr. Lee was strong for

vigorous measures only because he was "absolutely certain that the same

ship which carries hence the resolutions will bring back the redress."

If he supposed otherwise, he "should be for exceptions."

From the first day of the Congress it was known that the Massachusetts

men were in favor of "vigorous measures;" vigorous measures

being understood to mean the adoption of strict non-importation,

non-consumption, and non-exportation agreements. There were moments

when John Adams thought even these measures tame and unheroic: "When

Demosthenes (God forgive the vanity of recollecting his example) went

ambassador from Athens to the other states of Greece, to excite a

confederacy against Phillip, he did not go to propose a Non-Importation

or Non-Consumption Agreement...." For all this, the Massachusetts men

kept themselves well in the background, knowing that there was much

jealousy and some fear of New England leadership and well aware that

the recent experience with non-importation agreements had greatly

diminished, in the mercantile colonies of New York, Pennsylvania, and

South Carolina, the enthusiasm for such experiments.

The trouble with non-importation agreements, as Major Hawley had told

John Adams, was that "they will not be faithfully observed; that the

Congress have no power to enforce obedience to their laws; that they

will be like a legislative without an executive." Did Congress have, or

could it assume, authority to compel men to observe its resolutions, to

compel them to observe, for example, a non-importation agreement? This

was a delicate question upon which opinion was divided. "We have

no legal authority," said Mr. Rutledge, "and obedience to our

determinations will only follow the reasonableness, the apparent

utility, and necessity of the measures we adopt. We have no coercive or

legislative authority." If this was so, the non-intercourse policy would

doubtless prove a broken reed. Massachusetts men were likely to be of

another opinion, were likely to agree with Patrick Henry, who affirmed

that "Government is dissolved. Fleets and armies and the present state

of things show that government is dissolved. We are in a state of

nature, Sir!" If they were indeed in a state of nature, it was perhaps

high time that Congress should assume the powers of a government, in

which case it might be possible to adopt and to enforce non-intercourse

measures. In this gingerly way did the deputies lift the curtain and

peer down the road to revolution.

The deputies, like true Britons, contrived to avoid the highly

theoretical question of authority, and began straightway to concern

themselves with the practical question of whether the Congress, with

or without authority, should recommend the adoption of strict

non-intercourse agreements. Upon this question, as the chief issue, the

deputies were divided into nearly equal groups. Mr. Galloway, Mr. Duane,

and Mr. Rutledge were perhaps the leaders of those, probably a majority

at first, who were opposed to such vigorous measures, fearing that they

were intended as a cloak to cover the essentially revolutionary designs

of the shrewd New Englanders. "We have too much reason to suspect that

independence is aimed at," Mr. Low warned the Congress; and Mr. Galloway

could see that while the Massachusetts men were in "behavior very

modest, yet they are not so much so as not to throw out hints, which

like straws and feathers show from which point in the compass the wind

comes." In the early days of the Congress, if we are to believe Mr.

Hutchinson, this cold north wind was so much disliked that the New

York and New Jersey deputies, "and others," carried a vote against the

adoption of non-intercourse agreements, "agreed to present a petition

to the King," and "expected to break up, when letters arrived from Dr.

Franklin which put an end to the petition."

The Journals of the Congress do not record any vote of this kind; but

a number of things are known to have occurred in the Congress which the

Journals do not record. On September 17, the famous "Suffolk Resolves"

were laid before the deputies for their approval. The resolutions had

been adopted by a county convention in Massachusetts, and in substance

they recommended to the people of Massachusetts to form a government

independent of that of which General Gage was the Governor, urged them

meanwhile to arm themselves in their own defense, and assured them that

"no obedience is due from this province to either or any part" of the

Coercive Acts. These were indeed "vigorous measures"; and when the

resolutions came before Congress, "long and warm debates ensued between

the parties," Mr. Galloway afterwards remembered; and he says that when

the vote to approve them was finally carried, "two of the dissenting

members presumed to offer their protest to it in writing which was

negatived," and when they then insisted that the "tender of the protest

and the negative should be entered on the minutes, this was also

rejected."

Later in the month, September 28, Mr. Galloway introduced his famous

plan for a "British-American Parliament" as a method for permanent

reconciliation. The motion to enter the plan on the minutes and to refer

it for further consideration gave rise to "long and warm debates," the

motion being carried by a majority of one colony; but subsequently,

probably on October 21, it was voted to expunge the plan, together with

all resolutions referring to it, from the minutes. Nothing, as Benjamin

Franklin wrote from England, could so encourage the British Government

to persist in its oppressive policy as the knowledge that dissensions

existed in the Congress; and since these dissensions did unfortunately

exist, there was a widespread feeling that it would be the part of

wisdom to conceal them as much as possible.

No doubt a majority of the deputies, when they first read the Suffolk

Resolutions, were amazed that the rash New Englanders should venture to

pledge themselves so frankly to rebellion. Certainly no one who thought

himself a loyal subject of King George could even contemplate rebellion;

but, on the other hand, to leave Massachusetts in the lurch after so

much talk of union and the maintenance of American rights would

make loyal Americans look a little ridiculous. That would be to show

themselves lambs as soon as Britons had shown themselves lions, which

was precisely what their enemies in England boasted they would do.

Confronted by this difficult dilemma, moderate men without decided

opinions began to fix their attention less upon the exact nature of the

measures they were asked to support, and more upon the probable effect

of such measures upon the British Government. It might be true, and

all reports from England seemed to point that way, that the British

Government was only brandishing the sword in terrorem, to see whether

the Americans would not run at once to cover; in which case it would be

wiser for all loyal subjects to pledge themselves even to rebellion, the

prospect being so very good that Britain would quickly sheathe its sword

and present instead the olive branch, saying, "This is what I intended

to offer." Therefore, rather than leave Massachusetts in the lurch and

so give the lie to the boasted unity of the colonies, many moderate

and loyal subjects voted to approve the Suffolk Resolutions, which they

thought very rash and ill-advised measures.

Whatever differences still prevailed, if indeed practical men could hold

out after the accomplished fact, might be bridged and compromised

by adopting those petitions and addresses which the timid thought

sufficient and at the same time by subscribing to and "recommending"

those non-intercourse agreements which the bolder sort thought

essential.

This compromise was in fact effected. The Congress unanimously adopted

the moderate addresses which Lord Chatham afterwards praised for their

masterly exposition of true constitutional principles; but it likewise

adopted, also unanimously, a series of resolutions known as the

Association, to which the deputies subscribed their names. By signing

the Association, the deputies bound themselves, and recommended the

people in all the colonies to bind themselves, not to import, after

December 1, 1774, any commodities from Great Britain or Ireland, or

molasses, syrups, sugars, and coffee from the British plantations, or

East India Company tea from any place, or wines from Madeira, or foreign

indigo; not to consume, after March 1, 1775, any of these commodities;

and not to export, after September 10, 1775, any commodities whatever to

Great Britain, Ireland, or the West Indies, "except rice to Europe." It

was further recommended that a committee be formed in each city, town,

and county, whose business it should be to observe the conduct of all

persons, those who refused to sign the Association as well as those who

signed it, and to publish the names of all persons who did not observe

the agreements there entered into, "to the end that all such foes of

the rights of British-America may be publicly known and universally

condemned as the enemies of American liberty"; and it was likewise

recommended that the committees should inspect the customs entries

frequently, that they should seize all goods imported contrary to the

recommendation of the Association and reship them, or, if the owner

preferred, sell them at public auction, the owner to be recompensed for

the first costs, the profits, if any, to be devoted to relieving the

people of Boston.

Having thus adopted a Petition to the King, a Memorial to the

Inhabitants of the British Colonies, and an Address to the People of

Great Britain, and having recommended a certain line of conduct to

be followed by all loyal Americans, the first Continental Congress

adjourned. It had assumed no "coercive or legislative authority";

obedience to its determinations would doubtless depend, as Mr. Rutledge

had said, upon "the reasonableness, the apparent utility and necessity"

of its recommendations.

"There can be no doubt," the Earl of Dartmouth is reported to have said,

"that every one who had signed the Association was guilty of treason."

The Earl of Dartmouth was not counted one of the enemies of America; and

if this was his opinion of the action of the first Continental Congress,

Lord North's supporters in Parliament, a great majority since the

recent elections, were not likely to take a more favorable view of it.

Nevertheless, when the American question came up for consideration in

the winter of 1775, "conciliation" was a word frequently heard on all

sides, and even corrupt ministers were understood to be dallying with

schemes of accommodation. In January and February great men were sending

agents, and even coming themselves, to Dr. Franklin to learn what in his

opinion the colonies would be satisfied with. Lord Chatham, as might

be guessed, was meditating a plan. On the 29th of January, he came to

Craven Street and showed it to Franklin, who made notes upon it, and

later went out to Hayes, two hours' ride from London, where he remained

for four hours listening to the easy flow of the Great Commoner's

eloquence without being able to get any of his own ideas presented.

Fortified by the presence if not by the advice of Franklin, Lord Chatham

laid his plan before Parliament on the 1st of February. He would have an

explicit declaration of the dependence of the colonies on the Crown and

Parliament in all matters of trade and an equally explicit declaration

that no tax should be imposed upon the colonies without their consent;

and when the Congress at Philadelphia should have acknowledged the

supremacy of the Crown and Parliament and should have made a free and

perpetual grant of revenue, then he would have all the obnoxious acts

passed since 1764, and especially the Coercive Acts, totally repealed.

Lord Sandwich, in a warm speech, moved to reject these proposals at

once; and when the vote was taken it was found that 61 noble lords were

in favor of rejecting them at once, while only 31 were opposed to so

doing.

Lord North was perhaps less opposed to reconciliation than other noble

lords were. A few days later Franklin was approached by Admiral Howe,

who was understood to know the First Minister's mind, to learn whether

he might not suggest something for the Government to go upon. The

venerable Friend of the Human Race was willing enough to set down on

paper some "Hints" which Admiral Howe might think advisable to show

to ministers. It happened, however, that the "Hints" went far beyond

anything the Government had in mind. Ministers would perhaps be willing

to repeal the Tea Act and the Boston Port Bill; but they felt strongly

that the act regulating the Massachusetts charter must stand as "an

example of the power of Parliament." Franklin, on the other hand, was

certain that "while Parliament claims the right of altering American

constitutions at pleasure, there can be no agreement." Since the

parties were so far apart, it seemed useless to continue the informal

negotiation, and on February 20, Lord North laid before Parliament his

own plan for effecting an accommodation.

Perhaps, after all, it was not his own plan; for Lord North, much

inclined to regard himself as the King's minister, was likely to

subordinate his wishes to those of his master. King George III, at all

events, had his own ideas on conciliation. "I am a friend to holding

out the olive branch," he wrote in February, "yet I believe that,

when vigorous measures appear to be the only means, the colonies will

submit." Knowing the King's ideas, as well as those of Dr. Franklin,

Lord North accordingly introduced into Parliament the Resolution on

Conciliation, which provided that when any colony should make provision

"for contributing their proportion to the common defense, ... and for

the support of the civil government, and the administration of justice

in such province, ... it will be proper, ... for so long as such

provision shall be made, ... to forbear, in respect of such province,

... to levy any Duty, Tax, or Assessment, ... except ... for the

regulation of commerce." The minister's resolution, although by most of

his supporters thought to be useless, was adopted by a vote of 274 to

88.

It was not the intention of the Government to hold out the olive branch

by itself. Lord North, and perhaps the King also, hoped the colonies

would accept it; but by all maxims of politics an olive branch was more

likely to be accepted if the shining sword was presented at the same

time as the only alternative. As early as the 10th of February, Lord

North had introduced into Parliament a bill, finally passed March 30,

"to restrain the trade and commerce" of the New England colonies to

"Great Britain, Ireland, and the British islands in the West Indies,"

and to exclude these colonies from "carrying on any fishery on the banks

of Newfoundland," it being "highly unfit that the inhabitants of the

said provinces ... should enjoy the same privileges of trade ... to

which his Majesty's faithful and obedient subjects are entitled." The

provisions of this act were extended to the other colonies in April; and

meantime measures were taken to strengthen the naval forces.

The first certain information that Lord North had extended the olive

branch reached New York April 24, 1775, two weeks before the day fixed

for the meeting of the second Continental Congress. Important changes

had taken place since the first Congress, six months earlier, had sent

forth its resolutions. In every colony there was a sufficient number

of patriots who saw "the reasonableness, the apparent utility, and

necessity" of forming the committees which the Association recommended;

and these committees everywhere, with a marked degree of success,

immediately set about convincing their neighbors of the utility and

necessity of signing the non-importation agreement, or at least of

observing it even if they were not disposed to sign it. To deny the

reasonableness of the Association was now indeed much more difficult

than it would have been before the Congress assembled; for the Congress,

having published certain resolutions unanimously entered into, had come

to be the symbol of America united in defense of its rights; and what

American, if indeed one might call him such, would wish to be thought

disloyal to America or an enemy of its liberties? It required a degree

of assurance for any man to set up his individual judgment against the

deliberate and united judgment of the chosen representatives of all the

colonies; and that must be indeed a very subtle mind which could draw

the distinction between an enemy of liberty and a friend of liberty who

was unwilling to observe the Association.

Some such subtle minds there were--a considerable number in most

colonies who declared themselves friends of liberty but not of the

Association, loyal to America but not to the Congress. One of these was

Samuel Seabury, an Episcopalian clergyman living in Westchester

County, New York, a vigorous, downright man, who at once expressed his

sentiments in a forcible and logical manner, and with much sarcastic

humor, in a series of pamphlets which were widely read and much

commended by those who found in them their own views so effectively

expressed. This Westchester Farmer--for so he signed himself--proclaimed

that he had always been, and was still, a friend of liberty in general

and of American liberty in particular. The late British measures he

thought unwise and illiberal, and he had hoped that the Congress would

be able to obtain redress, and perhaps even to effect a permanent

reconciliation. But these hopes were seen to be vain from the day when

the Congress approved the Suffolk Resolutions and, instead of adopting

Mr. Galloway's plan, adopted the Association. For no sane man could

doubt that, under the thin disguise of "recommendations," Congress had

assumed the powers of government and counseled rebellion. The obvious

conclusion from this was that, if one could not be a loyal American

without submitting to Congress, then it was impossible to be at the same

time a loyal American and a loyal British subject.

But, if the problem were rightly considered, Mr. Seabury thought one

might be loyal to America in the best sense without supporting Congress;

for, apart from any question of legality, the Association was highly

inexpedient, inasmuch as non-importation would injure America more than

it injured England, and, for this reason if for no others, it would be

found impossible to "bully and frighten the supreme government of the

nation." Yet all this was beside the main point, which was that the

action of Congress, whether expedient or not, was illegal. It was

illegal because it authorized the committees to enforce the Association

upon all alike, upon those who never agreed to observe it as well as

upon those who did; and these committees, as everyone knew, were so

enforcing it and were "imposing penalties upon those who have presumed

to violate it." The Congress talked loudly of the tyranny of the British

Government. Tyranny! Good Heavens! Was any tyranny worse than that of

self-constituted committees which, in the name of liberty, were daily

conducting the most hateful inquisition into the private affairs of free

British subjects? "Will you choose such committees? Will you submit to

them should they be chosen by the weak, foolish, turbulent part of the

... people? I will not. No. If I must be enslaved, let it be by a King

at least, and not by a parcel of upstart, lawless committeemen."

The Massachusetts men were meanwhile showing no disposition to submit

to the King. In that colony a Provincial Congress, organized at Salem

in October, 1774, and afterwards removed to Cambridge, had assumed

all powers of government in spite of General Gage and contrary to the

provisions of the act by which Parliament had presumed to remodel the

Massachusetts charter. Outside of Boston at least, the allegiance of the

people was freely given to this extra-legal government; and under its

direction the towns began to prepare for defense by organizing the

militia and procuring and storing arms and ammunition.

To destroy such stores of ammunition seemed to General Gage quite the

most obvious of his duties; and Colonel Smith was accordingly ordered to

proceed to the little village of Concord, some eighteen miles northwest

of Boston, and destroy the magazines which were known to be collected

there. The night of the 18th of April was the time fixed for this

expedition; and in the evening of that day patriots in Boston noted

with alarm that bodies of troops were moving towards the waterside. Dr.

Joseph Warren, knowing or easily guessing the destination of the troops,

at once despatched William Dawes, and later in the evening Paul Revere

also, to Lexington and Concord to spread the alarm. As the little army

of Colonel Smith--a thousand men, more or less--left Boston and marched

up into the country, church bells and the booming of cannon announced

their coming. Day was breaking when the British troops approached the

town of Lexington; and there on the green they could see, in the

early morning light, perhaps half a hundred men standing in military

array--fifty against a thousand! The British rushed forward with huzzas,

in the midst of which shots were heard; and when the little band of

minutemen was dispersed eight of the fifty lay dead upon the village

green.

The battle of Lexington was begun, but it was not yet finished. Pushing

on to Concord, the thousand disciplined British regulars captured and

destroyed the military stores collected there. This was easily done; but

the return from Concord to Lexington, and from Lexington to Cambridge,

proved a disastrous retreat. The British found indeed no minutemen drawn

up in military array to block their path; but they found themselves

subject to the deadly fire of men concealed behind the trees and rocks

and clumps of shrubs that everywhere conveniently lined the open road.

With this method of warfare, not learned in books, the British were

unfamiliar. Discipline was but a handicap; and the fifteen hundred

soldiers that General Gage sent out to Lexington to rescue Colonel Smith

served only to make the disaster greater in the end. When the retreating

army finally reached the shelter of Cambridge, it had lost, in

killed and wounded, 247 men; while the Americans, of whom it had been

confidently asserted in England that they would not stand against

British regulars, had lost but 88.

The courier announcing the news of Lexington passed through New York

on the 23d of April. Twenty-four hours later, during the height of the

excitement occasioned by that event, intelligence arrived from England

that Parliament had approved Lord North's Resolution on Conciliation.

For extending the olive branch, the time was inauspicious; and when the

second Continental Congress assembled, two weeks later, on the 10th of

May, men were everywhere wrathfully declaring that the blood shed at

Lexington made allegiance to Britain forever impossible.

It might indeed have seemed that the time had come when every man must

decide, once for all, whether he would submit unreservedly to the King

or stand without question for the defense of America. Yet not all men,

not a majority of men in the second Continental Congress, were of that

opinion.

The second Congress was filled with moderate minded men who would not

believe the time had come when that decision had to be made--men who

were bound to sign themselves British-Americans till the last possible

moment, many of whom could not now have told whether in the end they

would sign themselves Britons or Americans. Surely, they said, we need

not make the decision yet. We have the best of reasons for knowing that

Britain will not press matters to extremities. Can we not handle the

olive branch and the sword as well as Lord North? A little fighting, to

convince ministers that we can't be frightened, and all will be well. We

shall have been neither rebels nor slaves. The second Congress was full

of men who were, as yet, "Neither-Nor."

There was Joseph Galloway, once more elected to represent Pennsylvania,

ready to do what he could to keep Congress from hasty action, hoping

for the best yet rather expecting the worst, discreetly retiring, at an

early date, within the ranks of the British loyalists. John Alsop, the

"soft, sweet" man, was also there, active enough in his mild way until

the very last--until the Declaration of Independence, as he said,

"closed the last door to reconciliation." There, too, was James Duane,

with never so great need of his "surveying eye" to enable him to size up

the situation. He is more discreet than any one, and sits quietly in his

seat, on those days when he finds it convenient to attend, which is not

too often--especially after November, at which time he moved his effects

to Duanesborough, and so very soon disappears from sight, except perhaps

vicariously in the person of his servant, James Brattle, whom we see

flitting obscurely from Philadelphia to New York conveying secret

information to Governor Tryon. John Jay, the hard-reading young

lawyer, who favored Mr. Galloway's plan but in the end signed the

Association--here he is again, edging his way carefully along, watching

his step, crossing no bridges beforehand, well over indeed before

he seems aware of any gulf to be crossed. And here is the famous

Pennsylvania Farmer, leader of all moderate men, John Dickinson, only

too well aware of the gulf opening up before him, fervently praying

that it may close again of its own accord. Mr. Dickinson has no mind

for anything but conciliation, to obtain which he will go the length of

donning a Colonel's uniform, or at least a Colonel's title, perfecting

himself and his neighbors in the manual of arms against the day when

the King would graciously listen to the loyal and humble petition of the

Congress.

Mr. Dickinson, staking all on the petition, was distressed at the rash

talk that went on out of doors; and in this respect, no one distressed

him more than his old friend, John Adams, who thought and said that

a petition was a waste of time and who was all for the most vigorous

measures (such, doubtless, as Demosthenes might have counseled),--the

seizure of all crown officers, the formation of state governments, the

raising of an army, and negotiations for obtaining the assistance of

France. When Mr. Dickinson, having marshaled his followers from

the middle colonies and South Carolina, got his petition before the

Congress, John Adams, as a matter of course, made "an opposition to

it in as long a speech as I commonly made ... in answer to all the

arguments that had been urged." And Adams relates in his Diary how,

being shortly called out of Congress Hall, he was followed by Mr.

Dickinson, who broke out upon him in great anger. "What is the

reason, Mr. Adams, that you New-England men oppose our measures of

reconciliation? There now is Sullivan, in a long harangue, following you

in a determined opposition to our petition to the King. Look ye! If you

don't concur with us in our pacific system, I and a number of us will

break off from you in New England, and we will carry on the opposition

by ourselves in our own way." At that moment it chanced that John Adams

was "in a very happy temper" (which was not always the case), and so,

he says, was able to reply very coolly. "Mr. Dickinson, there are many

things that I can very cheerfully sacrifice to harmony, and even to

unanimity; but I am not to be threatened into an express adoption or

approbation of measures which my judgment reprobates. Congress must

judge, and if they pronounce against me, I must submit, as, if they

determine against you, you ought to acquiesce."

The Congress did decide. It decided to adopt Mr. Dickinson's petition;

and to this measure John Adams submitted. But the Congress also decided

to raise a Continental army to assist Massachusetts in driving

the British forces out of Boston, of which army it appointed, as

Commander-in-Chief, George Washington, Esq.; and in justification of

these measures it published a Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of

Taking up Arms:

Our cause is just. Our union is perfect. Our internal resources

are great, and, if necessary, foreign assistance is undoubtedly

attainable.... Fortified with these animating reflections, we ...

declare that ... the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to

assume, we will ... employ for the preservation of our liberties, being

with one mind resolved to die freemen rather than live slaves.... We

have not raised armies with ambitious designs of separating from Great

Britain.... We shall lay them down when hostilities shall cease on the

part of the aggressors.... With an humble confidence in the mercies

of the supreme and impartial Judge and Ruler of the Universe, we ...

implore his divine goodness to protect us happily through this great

conflict, to dispose our adversaries to reconciliation on reasonable

terms, and thereby to relieve the empire from the calamities of civil

war.

In these measures Mr. Dickinson acquiesced, as John Adams had submitted

to the petition. The "perfect" union which was thus attained was

nevertheless a union of wills rather than of opinions; and on July 24,

1775, in a letter to James Warren, John Adams gave a frank account of

the state of mind to which the perfect union had reduced him:

In confidence, I am determined to write freely to you this time. A

certain great Fortune and piddling Genius, whose Fame has been trumpeted

so loudly, has given a silly Cast to our whole Doings. We are between

Hawk and Buzzard. We ought to have had in our Hands a month ago the

whole Legislative, executive, and judicial of the whole Continent, and

have completely modeled a Constitution; to have raised a naval Power,

and opened our Ports wide; to have arrested every Friend of Government

on the Continent and held them as Hostages for the poor Victims of

Boston, and then opened the Door as wide as possible for Peace and

Reconciliation. After that they might have petitioned, and negotiated,

and addressed, etc., if they would. Is all this extravagant? Is it wild?

Is it not the soundest Policy?

It seems that Mr. Adams would have presented the sword boldly, keeping

the olive branch carefully concealed behind his back. His letter,

intercepted by the British Government, and printed about the time when

Mr. Dickinson's petition was received in London, did nothing to make

the union in America more perfect, or to facilitate the opening of that

refractory "Door ... for Peace and Reconciliation."

The truth is that John Adams no longer believed in the possibility of

opening this door, even by the tiniest crack; and even those who still

had faith in the petition as a means to that end found it somewhat

difficult to keep their faith alive during the weary month of October

while they waited for the King's reply. Mr. Chase, although he had

"not absolutely discarded every glimpse of a hope of reconciliation,"

admitted that "the prospect was gloomy." Mr. Zubly assured Congress that

he "did hope for a reconciliation and that this winter may bring it";

and he added, as if justifying himself against sceptical shrugs of

shoulders, "I may enjoy my hopes for reconciliation; others may enjoy

theirs that none will take place." It might almost seem that the idea

of reconciliation, in this October of 1775, was a vanishing image to be

enjoyed retrospectively rather than anything substantial to build upon

for the future. This it was, perhaps, that gave especial point to Mr.

Zubly's oft-repeated assertion that Congress must speedily obtain one

of two things--"a reconciliation with Great Britain, or the means of

carrying on the war."

Reconciliation or war! This was surely a new antithesis. Had not arms

been taken up for the purpose precisely of disposing their adversaries

"to reconciliation on reasonable terms"? Does Mr. Zubly mean to say then

that war is an alternative to reconciliation--an alternative which

will lead the colonies away from compromise towards that which all

have professed not to desire? Is Mr. Zubly hinting at independence even

before the King has replied to the petition? No. This is not what Mr.

Zubly meant. What he had in the back of his mind, and what the Congress

was coming to have in the back of its mind, if one may judge from the

abbreviated notes which John Adams took of the debates in the fall of

1775, was that if the colonies could not obtain reconciliation by means

of the non-intercourse measures very soon--this very winter as Mr.

Zubly hoped--they would have to rely for reconciliation upon a vigorous

prosecution of the war; in which case the non-intercourse measures were

likely to prove an obstacle rather than an advantage, since they would

make it difficult, if not impossible, to obtain the "means of carrying

on the war."

The non-intercourse measures had been designed to obtain conciliation

by forcing Great Britain to make concessions; but if Great Britain would

make no concessions, then the non-intercourse measures, by destroying

the trade and prosperity of the colonies, would have no other effect

than to bring about conciliation by forcing the colonies to make

concessions themselves. This was not the kind of conciliation that any

one wanted; and so the real antithesis which now confronted Congress

was between war and non-intercourse. Mr. Livingston put the situation

clearly when he said: "We are between hawk and buzzard; we puzzle

ourselves between the commercial and warlike opposition."

Through long debates Congress puzzled itself over the difficult task of

maintaining the Association and of obtaining the means for carrying on

the war. Doubtless a simple way out would be for Congress to allow

so much exportation only as might be necessary to pay for arms and

ammunition; and still not so simple either, since it would at once

excite many jealousies. "To get powder," Mr. Jay observed, "we keep a

secret law that produce may be exported. Then come the wrangles among

the people. A vessel is seen loading--a fellow runs to the committee."

Well, it could not be helped; let the fellow run to the committee, and

let the committee reassure him--that was the business of the committee;

and so the Congress authorized the several colonies to export as much

"produce, except horned cattle, sheep, hogs, and poultry, as they may

deem necessary for the importation of arms, ammunition, sulphur, and

saltpetre." Thus powder might be obtained.

Nevertheless, war could not live by powder alone. The imponderable moral

factors had to be considered, chief of which was the popular support or

opposition which Congress and the army might count upon under certain

circumstances. No doubt people were patriotic and wished to maintain

their rights; but no doubt people would be more patriotic and more

enthusiastic and practically active in their support of both Congress

and the army, if they were reasonably prosperous and contented than if

they were not. Self-denying ordinances were, by their very nature, of

temporary and limited efficacy; and it was pertinent to inquire how long

the people would be content with the total stoppage of trade and the

decay of business which was becoming every day more marked. "We can live

on acorns; but will we?" It would perhaps be prudent not to expect

"more virtue ... from our people than any people ever had"; it would

be prudent "not to put virtue to too severe a test, ... lest we wear it

out." And it might well be asked what would wear it out and "disunite us

more than the decay of all business? The people will feel, and will say,

that Congress tax them and oppress them more than Parliament." If the

people were to be asked to fight for their rights, they must at all

hazards not be allowed to say that Congress oppressed them more than

Parliament!

For the moment all this was no more than a confession that the

Association, originally designed as a finely chiseled stepping-stone to

reconciliation, was likely to prove a stumbling-block unless the King

graciously extended his royal hand to give a hearty lift. It presently

appeared that the King refused to extend his hand. October 31, 1775,

information reached America that Richard Penn and Arthur Lee, having

presented the petition to Lord Dartmouth, were informed that the King

would not receive them, and furthermore that no answer would be returned

to the Congress. Ignoring the petition was to exhibit only one degree

more of contempt for that carefully prepared document than the Congress

had shown for Lord North's Resolution on Conciliation; and now that the

olive branch had been spurned on both sides, it was a little difficult

to see how either side could possibly refuse the sword.

That the colonies would refuse the sword was not very likely; but, as

if to make a refusal impossible, the British Government, on December 22,

1775, decided to thrust the sword into their hands. This at all events

was thought by many men to be the effect of the Prohibitory Act, which

declared the colonies outside the protection of the Crown, and which,

for the purpose of reducing them to submission, laid an embargo upon all

their trade and proclaimed their ports in a state of blockade.

I know not [John Adams wrote] whether you have seen the Act of

Parliament called the Restraining Act or Prohibitory Act, or Piratical

Act, or Act of Independency--for by all these titles is it called. I

think the most apposite is the Act of Independency; the King, Lords,

and Commons have united in sundering this country from that, I think,

forever. It is a complete dismemberment of the British Empire. It throws

thirteen colonies out of the royal protection, and makes us independent

in spite of supplications and entreaties. It may be fortunate that the

act of Independency should come from the British Parliament rather than

from the American Congress; but it is very odd that Americans should

hesitate at accepting such a gift from them.

The majority of those who refused to accept it--and the number was

large--retired, with saddened hearts for the most part, into the ranks

of the British Loyalists; only a few, with John Dickinson at their head,

could still visualize the vanishing image of reconciliation. Whether the

Prohibitory Act made reconciliation impossible or not, one thing at all

events it made clear: if Britain was bent on forcing the colonies to

submit by ruining their trade, it could scarcely be good policy for the

colonies to help her do it; of which the reasonable conclusion seemed

to be that, since the Parliament wished to close the ports of America to

the world, Congress would do well to open them to the world. On February

16, 1776, Congress accordingly took into "consideration the propriety of

opening the ports." To declare the ports open to the world was no doubt

easily done; but the main thing after all was to carry on trade with the

world; and this was not so easy since British naval vessels were there

to prevent it. "We can't carry on a beneficial trade, as our enemies

will take our ships"; so Mr. Sherman said, and of this he thought the

obvious inference was that "a treaty with a foreign power is necessary,

before we open our trade, to protect it."

"A treaty with a foreign power"--Mr. Wythe also mentioned this as a

possible way of reviving the trade of the colonies; but a treaty with a

foreign power was easier conceived of than made, and Mr. Wythe thought

"other things are to be considered before we adopt such a measure."

In considering these "other things," Mr. Wythe asked and answered the

fundamental question: "In what character shall we treat?--as subjects of

Great Britain--as rebels? ... If we should offer our trade to the court

of France, would they take notice of it any more than if Bristol or

Liverpool should offer theirs, while we profess to be subjects? No.

We must declare ourselves a free people." Thus it appeared that the

character of British subjects, no less than the Association, was a

stumbling-block in the way of obtaining "the means of carrying on the

war." The sword, as an instrument for maintaining rights, could after

all not be effectively wielded by America so long as her hand was

shackled by even the half-broken ties of a professed allegiance to

Britain. Therefore, when the Congress, on the 6th of April, opened the

ports of the colonies to the world, the Declaration of Independence was

a foregone conclusion.

The idea of independence, for many months past, had hovered like a

disembodied hope or menace about the entrance ways of controversy. A few

clear-sighted men, such as John Adams and Samuel Seabury, had so long

contemplated the idea without blinking that it had taken on familiar

form and substance. But the great majority had steadily refused to

consider it, except as a possible alternative not needing for the

present to be embraced. All these moderate, middle-of-the-way men

had now to bring this idea into the focus of attention, for the great

illusion that Britain would not push matters to extremities was rapidly

dissolving, and the time was come when it was no longer possible for any

man to be a British-American and when every man must decide whether it

was better to be an American even at the price of rebellion or a Briton

even at the price of submission. It is true that many never made up

their minds on this point, being quite content to swear allegiance

to whichever cause, according to time or place, happened to be in the

ascendant. But of all those thinking men whose minds could be made up

to stay, perhaps a third--this is the estimate of John Adams--joined

the ranks of the British Loyalists; while the rest, with more or

less reluctance, gave their support, little or great, to the cause of

independence.

When one has made, with whatever reluctance, an irrevocable decision, it

is doubtless well to become adjusted to it as rapidly as possible; and

this he can best do by thinking of the decision as a wise one--the only

one, in fact, which a sensible person could have made. Thus it was that

the idea of independence, embraced by most men with reluctance as a last

resort and a necessary evil, rapidly lost, in proportion as it seemed

necessary, its character of evil, took on the character of the highest

wisdom, and so came to be regarded as a predestined event which all

honest patriots must rejoice in having had a hand in bringing about.

This change in the point of view would doubtless have been made in any

case; but in rapidly investing the idea of independence with the shining

virtues of an absolute good to be embraced joyously, a great influence

must be ascribed to the little pamphlet entitled Common Sense, written

by a man then known to good patriots as Thomas Paine, and printed in

January, 1776. Intrinsically considered, Common Sense was indeed no

great performance. The matter, thin at best, was neither profoundly nor

subtly reasoned; the manner could hardly be described by even the most

complacent critic as humane or engaging. Yet Common Sense had its brief

hour of fame. Its good fortune was to come at the psychological moment;

and being everywhere read during the months from January to July, 1776,

it was precisely suited to convince men, not so much that they ought to

declare independence, as that they ought to declare it gladly, ought

to cast off lightly their former false and mawkish affection for the

"mother country" and once for all to make an end of backward yearning

looks over the shoulder at this burning Sodom.

To a militant patriot like Thomas Paine it was profoundly humiliating

to recall that for ten years past Americans had professed themselves

"humble and loyal subjects" and "dutiful children," yielding to none in

"admiration" for the "excellent British Constitution," desiring only to

live and die as free citizens under the protecting wing of the mother

country. Recalling all this sickening sentimentalism, Mr. Paine uttered

a loud and ringing Bosh! Let us clear our minds of cant, he said in

effect, and ask ourselves what is the nature of government in general

and of the famous British Constitution in particular. Like the Abbé

Sieyès, Mr. Paine had completely mastered the science of government,

which was in fact extremely simple. Men form societies, he said,

to satisfy their wants, and then find that governments have to

be established to restrain their wickedness; and therefore, since

government is obviously a necessary evil, that government is best which

is simplest.

Just consider then this "excellent British Constitution," and say

whether it is simple. On the contrary, it is the most complicated,

irrational, and ridiculous contrivance ever devised as a government of

enlightened men. Its admirers say that this complexity is a virtue, on

account of the nice balance of powers between King, Lords, and Commons,

which guarantees a kind of liberty through the resulting inertia of the

whole. The Lords check the Commons and the Commons check the King. But

how comes it that the King needs to be checked? Can he not be trusted?

This is really the secret of the whole business--that Monarchy naturally

tends to despotism; so that the complication of the British Constitution

is a virtue only because its basic principle is false and vicious. If

Americans still accept the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings, well

and good; if not, then in Heaven's name let them cease to bow down in

abject admiration of the British Constitution!

And in ceasing to admire the British Constitution, Americans should

also, Thomas Paine thought, give up that other fatal error, the

superstition that up to the present unhappy moment the colonies had

derived great benefits from living under the protecting wing of the

mother country. Protection! "We have boasted the protection of

Great Britain, without considering that her motive was interest not

attachment; and that she did not protect us from our enemies on our own

account, but from her enemies on her own account, from those who have no

quarrel with us on any other account, and who will always be our enemies

on the same account." An odd sort of protection that, which served

only to entangle the colonies in the toils of European intrigues and

rivalries, and to make enemies of those who would otherwise be friends!

"Our duty to mankind at large, as well as to ourselves, instructs us to

renounce the alliance: because, any submission to, or dependence upon,

Great Britain, tends directly to involve this continent in European wars

and quarrels, and set us at variance with nations who would otherwise

seek our friendship and against whom we have neither anger nor

complaint."

What foolishness then to seek reconciliation, even if it were possible!

Reconciliation at this stage would be the ruin of America. If King

George were indeed clever, he would eagerly repeal all the obnoxious

acts and make every concession; for when the colonies had once become

reconciled he could accomplish by "craft and subtlety, in the long run,

what he cannot do by force and violence in the short one." The colonies,

having come to maturity, cannot always remain subject to tutelage; like

the youth who has reached his majority, they must sooner or later go

their own way. Why not now? Beware of reconciliation and of all those

who advocate it, for they are either "interested men, who are not to be

trusted, weak men who cannot see, prejudiced men who will not see, or a

certain set of moderate men who think better of the European world than

it deserves."

Such arguments were indeed precisely suited to convince men that

independence, so far from being an event in which they had become

entangled by the fatal network of circumstance, was an event which they

freely willed. "Read by almost every American, and recommended as a work

replete with truth, against which none but the partial and prejudiced

can form any objection, ... it satisfied multitudes that it is their

true interest immediately to cut the Gordian knot by which the ...

colonists have been bound to Great Britain, and to open their commerce,

as an independent people, to all the nations of the world." In April and

May, after the Congress had opened the ports, the tide set strongly and

irresistibly in the direction of the formal declaration. "Every post

and every day rolls in upon us," John Adams said, "Independence like a

torrent." It was on the 7th of June that Richard Henry Lee, in behalf

of the Virginia delegation and in obedience to the instructions from the

Virginia Convention, moved "that these United Colonies are, and of

right ought to be, free and independent States ...; that it is expedient

forthwith to take the most effectual measures for forming foreign

Alliances; ... and that a plan of confederation be prepared and

transmitted to the respective Colonies for their consideration and

approbation."

The "resolution respecting independency," debated at length, was

postponed till the 1st of July, when it was again brought up for

consideration. It was still, on that day, opposed by many, chiefly by

John Dickinson, who now said that he should not be against independence

ultimately, but that he could not consent to it at the present moment

because it would serve to divide rather than to unite the colonies. At

the close of the debate on the 1st of July, there seemed little prospect

of carrying the resolution by a unanimous vote. The Delaware deputies

were evenly divided, the third member, Cæsar Rodney, not being at the

moment in Philadelphia; the Pennsylvania deputies were opposed to the

resolution, three against two; while the New York and South Carolina

deputies were not in a position to vote at all, having, as they said,

no instructions. The final vote was therefore again postponed until the

following day.

Which of the deputies slept this night is not known. But it is known

that Cæsar Rodney, hastily summoned, mounted his horse and rode

post-haste to Philadelphia, arriving in time to cast the vote of

Delaware in favor of independence; it is known that John Dickinson

and Robert Morris remained away from Independence Hall, and that James

Wilson changed his mind and voted with Franklin and Morton; and it is

known that the South Carolina deputies came somehow to the conclusion,

over night, that their instructions were after all sufficient. Thus

it was that on July 2, 1776, twelve colonies voted that "these United

Colonies are, and of right ought to be, Free and Independent States."

One week later, the New York deputies, having been properly instructed,

cast the vote of their colony for the resolution also.

Meanwhile, a committee had been appointed to prepare a formal

declaration, setting forth the circumstances and the motives which might

justify them, in the judgment of mankind, in taking this momentous step.

The committee had many meetings to discuss the matter, and, when the

main points had been agreed upon, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were

instructed to "draw them up in form, and clothe them in a proper dress."

Many years afterwards, in 1822, John Adams related, as accurately as he

could, the conversation which took place when these two met to perform

the task assigned them. "Jefferson proposed to me to make the draught. I

said, 'I will not.' 'You should do it.' 'Oh! no.' 'Why will you not?

You ought to do it.' 'I will not.' 'Why?' 'Reasons enough.' 'What can be

your reasons?' 'Reason first--You are a Virginian, and a Virginian ought

to appear at the head of this business. Reason second--I am obnoxious,

suspected, and unpopular. You are very much otherwise. Reason third--You

can write ten times better than I can.' 'Well,' said Jefferson, 'if you

are decided, I will do as well as I can.'" In some such manner as

this it came about that Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of

Independence, no doubt doing, as he said, the best he could.

It is the judgment of posterity that Mr. Jefferson did very well--which

was doubtless due partly to the fact that he could write, if not ten

times better, at least better than John Adams. Yet the happy phrasing of

a brief paragraph or two could scarcely by itself have won so much fame

for the author; and perhaps much of the success of this famous paper

came from the circumstance that ten years of controversy over the

question of political rights had forced Americans to abandon, step by

step, the restricted ground of the positive and prescriptive rights of

Englishmen and to take their stand on the broader ground of the natural

and inherent rights of man. To have said, "We hold this truth to

be self-evident: that all Englishmen are endowed by the British

Constitution with the customary right of taxing themselves internally"

would probably have made no great impression on the sophisticated

European mind. It was Thomas Jefferson's good fortune, in voicing the

prevailing sentiment in America, to give classic expression to those

fundamental principles of a political faith which was destined, in the

course of a hundred years, to win the allegiance of the greater part of

the western world.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created

equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable

Rights, that among these, are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of

Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among

Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed. That,

whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is

the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new

Government, laying its foundation on such Principles and organizing its

Powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their

Safety and Happiness."

It is to these principles--for a generation somewhat obscured, it must

be confessed, by the Shining Sword and the Almighty Dollar, by the

lengthening shadow of Imperialism and the soporific haze of Historic

Rights and the Survival of the Fittest--it is to these principles, these

"glittering generalities," that the minds of men are turning again in

this day of desolation as a refuge from the cult of efficiency and from

faith in "that which is just by the judgment of experience."

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

Contemporary Writings; Many of the most important documents for this

period are in the following brief collections: W. Macdonald,

Select Charters and Other Documents, 1906; H. W. Preston, Documents

Illustrative of American History, 5th ed., 1900; H. Niles, Principles

and Acts of the Revolution in America, 1822; J. Almon, Collection of

Papers Relative to the Dispute between Great Britain and America, 1777

(commonly cited as Prior Documents). The spirit of the times is best

seen in the contemporary newspapers, many extracts from which are

printed in F. Moore, Diary of the American Revolution from the

Newspapers and Original Documents, 1863. Of the numberless controversial

pamphlets, the following are noteworthy: J. Otis, Rights of the British

Colonies Asserted and Proved, 1764; D. Dulaney, Considerations on the

Propriety of Imposing Taxes on the British Colonies, 1765; J. Dickinson,

Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania to the Inhabitants of the British

Colonies, 1768 (also in Writings of John Dickinson, 3 vols. 1895); W.

Knox, The Controversy between Great Britain and her Colonies Reviewed,

1769 (excellent pro-British reply to Dickinson); S. Jenyns, The

Objections to the Taxation of Our American Colonies ... Briefly

Considered, 1765; J. Wilson, Considerations on the Nature and Extent of

the Legislative Authority of the British Parliament, 1774 (also in The

Works of James Wilson, 2 vols. 1896); S. Seabury, Free Thoughts on the

Proceedings of the Continental Congress, 1774; T. Paine, Common

Sense, 1776 (also in Writings of Thomas Paine, 4 vols. 1894-96). These

pamphlets are not available to most readers, but all of them, together

with many others, have been admirably described and summarized in M. C.

Tyler, The Literary History of the American Revolution, 2 vols. 1897.

The letters and public papers of the leaders of the Revolution have been

mostly printed, among which some of the most valuable and interesting

collections are: C. F. Adams, The Works of John Adams, 10 vols. 1856

(vol. II); J. Adams, Familiar Letters of John Adams and his Wife Abigail

Adams, 1875; W. C. Ford, The Warren-Adams Letters, 1917 (vol. I); A.

H. Smyth, The Writing's of Benjamin Franklin, 10 vols. 1905-1907 (vols.

IV-VI); P. L. Ford, The Writings of John Dickinson, 3 vols. 1895; H.

A. Cushing, The Writings of Samuel Adams, 4 vols. 1904-1908; P. O.

Hutchinson, Diary and Letters of Thomas Hutchinson, 2 vols. 1884. The

following works give the history of the time as it appeared to

various contemporaries: W. Gordon, History of the Rise, Progress, and

Establishment of American Independence, 4 vols. 1788 (parts of the

work taken bodily from the Annual Register); D. Ramsey, History of the

Revolution of South Carolina, 2 vols. 1785; A. Graydon, Memoirs of His

Own Times, 1846; T. Hutchinson, History of Massachusetts Bay, 3 vols.

1795-1828 (based on documents collected by the author, some of which

were destroyed in the Stamp Act riots); Mercy Warren, History of the

American Revolution, 3 vols. 1805 (author was a sister of James Otis);

W. Moultrie, Memoirs of the American Revolution so far as it Related

to North and South Carolina, 2 vols. 1802; J. Drayton, Memoirs of the

American Revolution, 2 vols. 1821; T. Jones, History of New York in the

Revolutionary War, 2 vols. 1879 (by a prominent New York Loyalist);

The Annual Register, 1765-1776 (an English annual giving summaries of

political events supposed to have been prepared by Edmund Burke); H.

Walpole, Memoirs of the Reign of George the Third, 4 vols. 1894.

Secondary Works: The best single volume on the Revolution is W. E. H.

Lecky, The American Revolution, 1912. Other good accounts: E. Charming,

History of the United States, vol. III, 1912; G. Howard, Preliminaries

of the American Revolution, 1905; S. G. Fisher, Struggle for American

Independence, 2 vols. 1908 (controverts many traditional ideas.

Interesting book by a man who has been bored by the laudation of the

heroic and patriotic side of the Revolution). Of the more detailed

histories, the best are: G. Bancroft, History of the United States, 10

vols. 1834-1874 (vols. V-VIII deal with the period 1765-1776. Strongly

prejudiced but accurate as to facts; based on documents collected in

European archives, some of which are not easily obtainable elsewhere.

Revised ed., 6 vols. 1885, omits notes and references, and therefore

not so valuable as the original edition); G. O. Trevelyan, The American

Revolution, 6 vols. 1899-1914 (brilliantly written by an Englishman of

Liberal sympathies. On the whole the work on the Revolution best worth

reading). Studies of the beginnings of the Revolution in particular

colonies: C. H. Lincoln, Revolutionary Movement in Pennsylvania, 1901;

H. J. Eckenrode, The Revolution in Virginia, 1916; C. L. Becker, History

of Political Parties in New York, 1760-1776, 1909. The best account of

the British policy leading up to the Grenville measures is G. L. Beer,

British Colonial Policy, 1754-1765, 1907. The interesting and important

subject of the Loyalists is sketched in C. H. Van Tyne, The Loyalists

of the American Revolution, 1902. Interesting biographies well worth

reading: W. W. Henry, Patrick Henry: Life, Correspondence, and Speeches,

3 vols. 1891; J. K. Hosmer, Life of Thomas Hutchinson, 1896; J. K.

Hosmer, Samuel Adams, 1893; M. Chamberlin, John Adams, 1884; C. J.

Stillé, The Life and Times of John Dickinson, 1891; D. D. Wallace, Life

of Henry Laurens, 1915; P. L. Ford, The Many-Sided Franklin, 1899; J.

Parton, Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin, 2 vols. 1867.

INDEX A Adams, John, on Virginia Resolutions, 77; attitude on Stamp Act

question, 90, 91; defends soldiers, 129; incurs popular displeasure,

129, 152; retires from public affairs, 152; part in Mass. controversy,

185; journeys to first Continental Congress, 200, 208-212; at

first Continental Congress, 203, 212-213, 233-234, 235, 236-237;

on Prohibitory Act, 242-243; idea of Independence, 245; to draft

Declaration of Independence with Jefferson, 253; urges Jefferson to

write Declaration, 254. Adams, Samuel, Sugar Act protest, 63; abhorrence

of Boston riots, 85; attitude on Stamp Act question, 91; assembles town

meeting, 128; drafts circular letter, 134-136; on Hutchinson, 150; Otis

suspicious of, 152; life and character, 153-158, 160-163; portrait

by Copley, 159; leader in crisis, 163-165; 175; controversy with

Hutchinson, 176 et seq.; goes to first Continental Congress, 200.

Adams, Samuel, the elder, 154. Alsop, John, 211, 232. Amherst, Jeffrey,

General, 36. Annual Register, 150. Army, Continental, Congress decides

to raise, 235. Association of 1774, 219-220, 225-226, 241. B Barré,

Isaac, Colonel, quoted, 47, 82. Beckford, Alderman, quoted, 41. Bedford,

Duke of, 121. Bedford, Grosvenor, Collector of Customs at port of

Philadelphia, 13-17. Bernard, Francis, Governor of Mass., corruption,

20; changes in colonial government, 21, 22; and finance, 76; unable

to protect Customs Commissioners, 126; succeeded by Hutchinson, 152;

letters to England, 191, 192. Bernard, Nat, Captain of the Liberty, 124.

Billeting Act, see Mutiny Act. Blainville, see Céloron de Blainville.

Bland, Richard, 66, 71, 74. Boston, Stamp Act riots, 83-86; Customs

Commissioners at, 124; Liberty sloop riot, 124-126; regiments active in

(1768), 126-127; Massacre (1770), 127-128; town meeting demands

removal of troops, 128; merchants enter non-importation agreement, 39;

Hutchinson's account of government, 173-174; town meeting, 174-175; tea

party, 199, 206; Port Bill, 207, 222. Boston Gazette, 81, 182. Brattle,

James, 233. "British-American Parliament," plan for, 216. Burke, Edmund,

on passing Stamp Act, 48-49; opinion of Townshend, 118. Bute, Lord,

resignation as premier, 16 (note). C Camden, Lord, 103. Canada, Franklin

urges England to retain, 5; question of retaining, 53, 54. "Caucus

Club," 159. "Caulkers' Club," 158. Céloron de Blainville, 32-33. Chase,

Samuel, 237. Chase, Thomas, 83. Chatham, Earl of, see Pitt. Cockle,

James, Collector of Customs for the port of Salem, 20. Coercive Acts,

207, 222. Colden, Cadwallader, Lieutenant-Governor of N. Y., 87-88.

Colonies, governors urge reforms, 21-22; defense of, 29 et seq.; lack

of coöperation among, 37; relation of assemblies and governors, 38;

population, 50-51; wealth, 51-52; trade, 53-55; governors, 58-61;

legislative independence, 131; see also Army, Commerce, Conciliation,

Taxation, and colonies by name. Commerce, trade with West Indies,

26, 28; increase (1748-1760), 54; colonial merchants agree to

non-importation, 139-140; London merchants petition Parliament, 141;

effects of non-importation agreement, 143-147. Conciliation, Galloway's

plan, 216; Pitt's plan, 221-222; North's plan, 223-224; 231; Dickinson

advises petition, 233-235; Great Britain to make concessions, 239.

Concord (Mass.), battle, 229-230. Continental Congress, first, Mass.

delegates, 201; reasons for calling, 201-208; non-importation question,

213-215; question of authority, 214; "Suffolk Resolves," 215-216, 217;

conciliation plan rejected, 216; dissensions in, 217; Declaration of

Rights, 218; Association, 219-220; accomplishments, 220; adjourns,

220. Continental Congress, second, meets, 225; moderate men in, 231;

Dickinson's petition, 233-235; raises army, 235; Declaration of the

Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms, 235-236; question of war or

reconciliation, 237 et seq.; opens ports, 243-244; idea of independence,

245-246. Conway, H. S., presents bill for repeal of Stamp Act, 108.

Curling, Captain, 205. Cushing, Thomas, 200. Customs, colonial duties,

24 et seq.; Townshend duties, 123; Board of Commissioners, 124; Liberty

sloop riot, 124-126; protest against Townshend duties, 131 et seq.;

duties repealed except on tea, 142-143, 148-149. D Dartmouth, Earl of,

opinion of first Continental Congress, 220; petition presented to, 242.

Dawes, William, 229. De Berdt, Dennys, 134. Declaration of Independence,

245, 253-256. Declaration of Rights, 218. Declaratory Act, 114.

Delaware, on question of independence, 252, 253. Dickinson, John,

quoted, 98; Farmer's Letters, 131-134; on conduct of East India

Company, 204-205; advises conciliation petition to King, 233-235; for

conciliation, 243; attitude toward independence, 252, 253. Dowdeswell,

William, 120. Duane, James, 211, 214, 232. Dulaney, Daniel,

Considerations on the Propriety of Imposing Taxes on the British

Colonies, 108 (note), 113-114. E East Indian Company, Government

suggests taking over possessions, 117; sends tea to colonies, 199,

202-206. England, of Franklin's day, 4-5, 7; sinecures in, 12 et seq.

F Finance, revenues from America, 16; debt of England, 18, 23; taxes,

23-24; colonial customs, 24 et seq.; Stamp Tax, 39 et seq.; plan to take

over possessions of East India Company, 117; land tax, 120; Townshend

duties, 123-124; Dickinson distinguishes between kinds of duties,

131-134; reasons for decay of business in New York, 144-146; see also

Customs, Taxation. Fleming, John, 70. Fox, C. J., quoted, 208. France

cedes possessions to England, 30. Franklin, Benjamin, commissioned

to London by Assembly of Pa. (1757), 1-2; delays going to accommodate

Loudoun, 2-3; journeys to London, 4; pamphlet urging retention of

Canada, 5; opinion of colonial loyalty, 5; life in England, 6-7; returns

to Philadelphia, 8; desired to return to England, 8-10; opinion as to

relations between Britain and colonies, 10-11; Plan of Union rejected,

37; description of American attitude toward defense, 38; as colonial

agent, 44-45; on rights of colonies, 50; The Increase of Mankind ...,

51; The Interest of Great Britain Considered, 54; opinion of Stamp Act,

65; opinion as to union of colonies, 78; examined in Parliament on tax

question, 104-107; opinion of rights of Parliament in the colonies,

137-138; letters to first Continental Congress, 215, 217; Pitt discusses

conciliation plan with, 221; consulted as to North's conciliation plan,

222-223; votes for independence, 253. Friends of Liberty and Trade,

147. Fur-trade, 27. G Gadsden, Christopher, quoted, 80. Gage, Thomas,

General, 199, 207, 208, 229, 230. Galloway, Joseph, at first Continental

Congress, 214, 215; conciliation plan, 216; in second Continental

Congress, 232. George III, attitude toward Stamp Act, 99 et seq.;

quoted, 200. Georgia, unrepresented in Stamp Act congress, 79. Gordon,

William, quoted, 74. Grenville, George, Premier, 13; character, 15;

letter to Walpole, 16; government efficiency, 17; interest in revenue,

19-20; content with colonial government, 22; budget, 23-29; plan of

colonial defense, 39; plans stamp tax, 40-41; answers colonial agents

concerning stamp tax, 42; postpones stamp tax, 43; consults Franklin,

44-45; perfects stamp tax plan, 45-46; quoted, 98; dismissed from

ministry, 100, 101; leader of Opposition, 102-103, 119. Gridley,

Jeremiah, 91, 167. Guadeloupe, 5, 53, 54. H Halifax, Earl of, Colonial

Secretary, 21, 22. Hallowell, Benjamin, 84. Hancock, John, defies

Stamp Act, 95; celebrates repeal of Stamp Act, 98; Liberty sloop riot,

124-126; during period of waning enthusiasm, 152, 153; relations

with Samuel Adams, 179; in Mass. Assembly, 193, 196; violation of

non-importation agreement, 203. Hawley, Major, 185, 213. Henry, Patrick,

in House of Burgesses (1765), 67; personal characteristics, 69-70; for

Virginia Resolutions, 71, 72, 73; in first Continental Congress, 212,

214. Hillsborough, Earl of, advises against Stamp Act, 40; censures

Mass. circular letter, 131, 142, 164-165. Howe, Richard, Earl, Admiral,

222. Hughes, John, 65. Hume, David, Franklin corresponds with, 6;

quoted, 7. Hutchinson, Anne, 165. Hutchinson, Thomas, on colonial

rights, 56-58; in Stamp Act riot, 84-85; adjourns Boston superior court,

91; orders troops to retire from Boston, 128-129; made Governor of

Mass., 152-153; quoted, 150; life and character, 165-170; ideas of

liberty, 170-174; relations with Samuel Adams, 175 et seq.; letters,

193-195, 196-198; History of Massachusetts Bay, 195; leaves for England,

199. I Indians, side with big battalions, 33-34; reservations, 35-36.

Ingersoll, Jared, 65, 82, 98. J Jackson, Grenville's secretary, 40, 46.

John Jay, 210, 233, 240. Jefferson, Thomas, in House of Burgesses, 71;

quoted, 200; drafts Declaration of Independence, 253-256. Jenkinson,

Charles, British Secretary of the Treasury, 39. Jenyns, Soame, on Stamp

Act, 109-113. Johnson, Conn. agent, 151, 176. Johnston, George, 70, 71.

K Kames, Lord, Franklin corresponds with, 6. Kirk, Thomas, 124, 125. L

La Galissonière, Marquis de, acting Governor of Canada, 32. Lamb, John,

94, 146. Lee, Arthur, 187, 242. Lee, R. H., 65-66, 212, 251. Lexington,

Battle of, 229-230. Liberty sloop riot, 124-126. Livingston, Philip,

87-90, 211, 239. Loudoun, Earl of, commander of forces in America, 2,

3, 4. Low, Isaac, N. Y. deputy to Continental Congress, 210, 215. M

M'Culloh, of North Carolina, 39. MacDougall, Alexander, 146, 147, 210.

Mansfield, Lord, 103, 107, 109. Marshall, James, 124, 125. Marshall,

Thomas, 67. Maryland, effect of non-importation agreement, 140.

Massachusetts, protests against Sugar Act and Stamp Act, 61-64; yields

to acts granting duties, 65; proposes Stamp Act Congress, 78-79;

censured for circular letter by Hillsborough, 130-131; Suffolk Resolves,

215-216; Parliament claims right to alter charter, 222-223; Provincial

Congress, 228; see also Boston. Mauduit, Jasper, Mass. agent, 24.

Mayhew, Jonathan, 85. Minerva, The (ship), 199. Molasses Act (1733),

26. Morris, Robert, 253. Morton, 253. Mutiny Act, 239. N Navigation and

Trade acts, 28-29. New Jersey declines to send delegate to Stamp Act

Congress, 79. New York, Stamp Act Congress, 79-80; stamp riots in,

87-90; Assembly refuses to abide by Quartering Act, 122; merchants agree

on non-importation, 139; effect of non-importation agreement, 140;

decay of business, 144-146; permitted to issue Bills of Credit, 148;

non-importation agreement set aside, 148; tea not to be imported,

148-149; vote for independence, 252, 253. Newfoundland fisheries

prohibited to colonies, 224. Newport Mercury, 75. Nicholas, R. C., 66,

76. Non-importation, agreements, 139; results, 140-141, 144-146; London

merchants protest, 141; discontinued, 148-149; Association of 1774,

219-220, 225-226, 241. Non-intercourse, 239. North, Lord, sought by Pitt

to replace Townshend, 121; proposes partial repeal of Townshend duties,

129; Resolution on Conciliation, 223 et seq.. North Carolina, effect of

non-importation agreement, 140. O Ohio Company, 32, 34. Oliver, Andrew,

82-84, 91, 198. Otis, James Jr., on parliamentary rights, 65; on

Virginia Resolutions, 77; and Stamp Act question, 91; Rights of the

British Colonies Asserted and Proved, 113; in 1770, 152; aids father

in soliciting chief-justiceship, 167; a leader in Boston, 175; deserts

Adams, 179. Otis, James, Sr., and chief-justiceship, 167. P Paine, R.

T., 200. Paine, Thomas, Common Sense, 247-251. Paris, Peace of, 10.

Parson's Cause, 69. Pendleton, Edmund, 66, 71, 74. Penn, Richard, 242.

Pennsylvania, effect of non-importation agreements, 140; on question

of independence, 252. Philadelphia merchants' attitude toward

non-importation, 139. Pitt, William, ministry, 5; and colonies, 30, 38,

40; refuses to succeed Granville, 101; in behalf of America, 103-104;

refers to Dulaney's pamphlet, 108 (note); becomes Earl of Chatham and

Prime Minister, 115-121; conciliation plan, 221-222. Pontiac uprising,

36. Pownall, Thomas, Administration of the Colonies, 49. Preparedness,

policy of, 31. Preston, Thomas, Captain, 129. Proclamation of 1763, 35.

Prohibitory Act, 242, 243. Q Quartering Act, 39, 114. Quincy, Josiah,

129. R Randolph, Peter, Colonel, 72. Randolph, Peyton, in House of

Burgesses, 66; and Virginia Resolutions, 71, 72, 73, 74, 76. Revere,

Paul, 229. Rigby, Master of the Rolls in Ireland, 18-19. Robinson, John,

66, 69. Rockingham, Marquis of, Prime Minister, 101, 102; and repeal of

Stamp Act, 107-108; Pitt succeeds, 115. Rodney, Cæsar, 252. Romney, The

(ship), 125, 126. Rutledge, Edward, 213, 214, 220. S Sandwich, Lord,

222. Seabury, Samuel, Westchester Farmer, 226, 227, 245. Seville, Sir

George, 104. Sewell, Jonathan, opinion of Virginia Resolutions, 76,

77. Shelburne, Earl of, 107, 119. Sherman, Roger, 244. Smith, Francis,

Colonel, 229, 230. Smith, William, of N.Y., quoted, 52. Sons of Liberty,

82, 92, 93-97, 146, 151. South Carolina, unrepresented in Stamp Act

Congress, 79; effect of non-importation agreement, 140. Stamp Act,

proposed, 39-41; reception of proposal, 41; Grenville argues for,

42; postponement of, 43; Franklin consulted, 44-45; provisions, 45;

discussion in Parliament, 46-48; passed, 48; Virginia Resolutions,

70-77; Congress, 78-81, 88; resisted in Boston, 82-86; rioting in N. Y.,

87-90; Sons of Liberty, 92-95; repealed, 98 et seq. Stevenson, Mary, 8.

Story, William, 84. Strahan, William, 7, 8. Suffolk Resolves, 215-216,

217, 227. Sugar Act (1764), 28; burdensome to colonies, 56; protest

in Mass., 61-64; memorial against, 67; modified, 114. T Taxation, on

colonies, 24-25, 27-29; 39 et seq.; parliamentary right, 56-58, 65, 106,

130; and representation, 81, 110-111; internal and external, 106, 109,

119, 123; see also Customs, Stamp Act, Sugar Act, Townshend duties.

Temple, Earl, 101. Toovey, Samson, statement of, 20. Townshend, Charles,

Lord of the Treasury, 21, 39; speech on Stamp Act, 47; questions

Franklin, 106; opinion of internal and external taxes, 109, 130;

Paymaster of the Forces, 115; as Chancellor of Exchequer, 116, 117;

Stamp Act, 118-119; with Opposition, 120-121; colonial policy, 122-124,

130. Townshend duties, 123; opposition to, 124 et seq.; partial repeal,

142-143. Tucker, Josiah, 206. Tudor, Deacon, quoted, 84, 86. V Virginia,

aristocracy of, 66; Burgesses protest against Sugar Act, 67; against

Stamp Act, 70-76; unrepresented in Stamp Act Congress, 79; effect of

non-importation agreement, 140. Virginia Resolutions, 71-77. W Walpole,

Horace, quoted, 5, 12; patron of Bedford, 13-15; optimism of, 150.

Walpole, Robert, 13, 32. Warren, James, 236. Warren, Dr. Joseph, 185,

229. Washington, George, 235. West Indies, sugar plantations represented

in Parliament, 26. Wilson, James, 253. Writs of assistance, 77 (note).

Wythe, George, 66, 71, 74, 76, 244. Z Zubly, J. J., 237-239.

The Chronicles of America Series

1. The Red Man's Continent

by Ellsworth Huntington

2. The Spanish Conquerors

by Irving Berdine Richman

3. Elizabethan Sea-Dogs

by William Charles Henry Wood

4. The Crusaders of New France

by William Bennett Munro

5. Pioneers of the Old South

by Mary Johnson

6. The Fathers of New England

by Charles McLean Andrews

7. Dutch and English on the Hudson

by Maud Wilder Goodwin

8. The Quaker Colonies

by Sydney George Fisher

9. Colonial Folkways

by Charles McLean Andrews

10. The Conquest of New France by George McKinnon Wrong

11. The Eve of the Revolution by Carl Lotus Becker

12. Washington and His Comrades in Arms by George McKinnon Wrong

13. The Fathers of the Constitution by Max Farrand

14. Washington and His Colleagues by Henry Jones Ford

15. Jefferson and his Colleagues by Allen Johnson

16. John Marshall and the Constitution by Edward Samuel Corwin

17. The Fight for a Free Sea by Ralph Delahaye Paine

18. Pioneers of the Old Southwest by Constance Lindsay Skinner

19. The Old Northwest by Frederic Austin Ogg

20. The Reign of Andrew Jackson by Frederic Austin Ogg

21. The Paths of Inland Commerce by Archer Butler Hulbert

22. Adventurers of Oregon by Constance Lindsay Skinner

23. The Spanish Borderlands by Herbert Eugene Bolton

24. Texas and the Mexican War by Nathaniel Wright Stephenson

25. The Forty-Niners by Stewart Edward White

26. The Passing of the Frontier by Emerson Hough

27. The Cotton Kingdom by William E. Dodd

28. The Anti-Slavery Crusade by Jesse Macy

29. Abraham Lincoln and the Union by Nathaniel Wright Stephenson

30. The Day of the Confederacy by Nathaniel Wright Stephenson

31. Captains of the Civil War by William Charles Henry Wood

32. The Sequel of Appomattox by Walter Lynwood Fleming

33. The American Spirit in Education by Edwin E. Slosson

34. The American Spirit in Literature by Bliss Perry

35. Our Foreigners by Samuel Peter Orth

36. The Old Merchant Marine by Ralph Delahaye Paine

37. The Age of Invention by Holland Thompson

38. The Railroad Builders by John Moody

39. The Age of Big Business by Burton Jesse Hendrick

40. The Armies of Labor by Samuel Peter Orth

41. The Masters of Capital by John Moody

42. The New South by Holland Thompson

43. The Boss and the Machine by Samuel Peter Orth

44. The Cleveland Era by Henry Jones Ford

45. The Agrarian Crusade by Solon Justus Buck

46. The Path of Empire by Carl Russell Fish

47. Theodore Roosevelt and His Times by Harold Howland

48. Woodrow Wilson and the World War by Charles Seymour

49. The Canadian Dominion by Oscar D. Skelton

50. The Hispanic Nations of the New World by William R. Shepherd

Transcriber's Notes

Introduction: The Chronicles of America Series has two similar editions

of each volume in the series. One version is the Abraham Lincoln edition

of the series, a premium version which includes pictures. A textbook

edition was also produced, which does not contain the pictures and

captions associated with the pictures, but is otherwise the same book.

This book was produced to match the textbook edition of the book. We

have retained the original punctuation and spelling in the book, but

there are a few exceptions. Obvious errors were corrected--and all of

these changes can be found in the Detailed Notes Section of these notes.

The Detailed Notes Section also includes issues that have come up during

the transcription process. One common issue is that words are sometimes

split into two lines for spacing purposes. These words are hyphenated in

the physical book, but there is a question sometimes as to whether the

hyphen should be retained in transcription. The reasons behind some of

these decisions are itemized.

Detailed Notes Section:

Chapter II • Page 25: While "indico" should be spelled "indigo," the

word is quoted from a budget and the spelling from the source document

is retained. • Page 25: While "herba" should be spelled "herbs," the

word is quoted from a budget and the spelling from the source document

is retained. • Page 27: Hundred-weight is hyphenated and split between

two lines for spacing. No other word of similar nature appears in

the document. The hyphen was not used in transcription: "twenty-two

shillings per hundredweight."

Chapter III • Page 67 and Page 69: Back-country was hyphenated and split

between two lines for spacing. On Page 67, the same word was used with

a hyphen in the middle of a line in the clause: "there came from the

back-country..." Therefore, the hyphen was retained in the two places

in question: "as in all the back-country counties," (Page 67) and

"followers in the back-country." (Page 69) • Page 76: There appears to

be missing quotes around the introductory clause attributed to Jonathan

Sewell in page 76: [We read the resolutions, said Jonathan Sewell,...].

In the Preface, Becker cautioned that he would use an unorthodox method

of telling the story to give "quality and texture of the state of mind

and feeling of an individual or class." As transcribers, we will simply

say that the quotation marks here match those in the printed book, and

thus, we assume that Becker intended to leave the introductory clause of

Sewell unquoted for subtle reasons implied in the Preface.

Chapter IV • Page 124: coffee-house was hyphenated and split between two

lines for spacing. On Page 93, "coffee house" was split into two words

for "Mr. Howard's coffee house." The hyphen was retained in the clause

"for the coffee-house retailers."

Chapter V • Page 159: firm-set is hyphenated and split between two lines

for spacing. The hyphen was retained in the clause "eyes flashing and

mouth firm-set." • Page 163: worn-out is hyphenated and split between

two lines for spacing. The hyphen was retained in the clause "or

creaking of worn-out institutions." • Page 182: changed double quotes

to single quotes when transcribing: [of the 'present disturbed and

disordered state' of government], because this clause is embedded within

a quotation. • Page 196: Placed a semi-colon after them; the punctuation

mark is unclear in my copy of the book. "Samuel Adams probably preferred

not to be forced to print them; knowing their contents, ..."