HOW THE UNITED STATES WON INDEPENDENCE
We have come to a moment in our story at which the events which
modified it most importantly occurred, not in Europe at all, but in
that new West which was still British. Before considering them,
however, it will be well to gather up some loose ends of the European
story.
There had been some rearrangement of territory, in the year 1767,
between Denmark and Sweden, by which most of what we may see on
modern maps marked as Schleswig-Holstein was given over to Denmark in
exchange for the Duchy of Oldenburg; but a rearrangement of far more
importance was that which is known as the first partition of Poland
in 1772. It was a mutual arrangement, between the three strong
powers of Russia, Austria, and Prussia, to dismember and embody as
parts of themselves such pieces of Polish territory as lay most
neighbourly to their own boundaries.
The Seven Years' War had been in large measure brought about by a
rather similar design against Prussia and Poland seems to have been
one of the consenting parties, if not an active partaker, in that
proposed robbery. Now a robbery yet more audacious was not only
proposed but actually perpetrated upon her. She was powerless to
resist; though there had been a time when she was a great power and
{135} Russia was scarcely heard of, Austria no more than the boundary
buffer state between the Teuton and the Slav, and Prussia of no
account whatever in the story. This first partition was followed by
a second and yet a third rather more than twenty years afterwards.
By that latest division she was almost wholly swallowed up in Russia
and ceased to exist as an independent State until her comparatively
recent resuscitation.
[Sidenote: Expansion of Russia]
On whatever side we now look of the boundaries of Russia we see them
continuously extending. Her armies defeat the Tartars eastward, the
Turks southward; she destroys a large Turkish fleet; she gains the
extensive region called White Russia, and the Crimea, and sends
conquering armies into the Balkan States, where the Bulgarian Slavs
are establishing themselves ever more firmly as an independent
nation. Largely it is by reason of the growing power of Russia that
the Turks, are more and more compelled to fight for their existence
and for their hold on even a part of their wide conquests in Europe.
They are no longer fighting to extend them. And at the same time,
that is to say, in 1768, Egypt, under the Mamelukes, throws off the
domination of the Ottomans. Originally these Mamelukes themselves
were Turkish--a bodyguard of Turkish slaves enrolled for the
protection of the Egyptian rulers. They had revolted and seized the
government soon after the reign of Saladin. And it is worthy of note
that in the midst of all the fighting which goes on in and around the
Balkans between Venetians, Turks, Russians, and others, the little
mountain State of Montenegro always retains her independence. Though
often attacked, she is never subdued. Her story may remind us of
those valiant and invincible Swiss, for doubtless it is because of
the mountainous character of the two countries alike, giving the
defence such a great advantage over the {136} attack, that the heroic
defenders of both kept their homeland free against enemies whose
numbers were many times greater than their own.
Now, turning to the far western side of the stage, the leading
feature of the drama is that the British had established themselves
as the great power in America. They had little to fear now from the
French. And the reason why that fact is of such vast importance in
the story is that, had it not been for that freedom from the French
menace, the independence of the United States could not possibly have
been won as, and at the time when, it was won. We may regard that
independence as a good thing or a bad thing for the world: we may
think it better for the world that there should be this great free
nation in the West, not united by any political ties with Europe; or
we may, on the contrary, deem that the peace and prosperity of man
would be better served if the United States belonged to that
confederation of States which we call the British Empire--although
"Empire" is rather a misleading name for it. The voice of the
Anglo-Saxon communities would certainly speak even more forcibly than
it does in the world's counsels if there were such union and such
unity.
But, whatever view we may take as to that, we cannot but see that the
English settlers in America could never, with even tolerable safety,
have declared themselves independent of the British Government, if
they had still had the French menace hanging over them. They could
not possibly have dispensed with the support of the British army and
navy. But after the defeat of the French in Canada they were free to
assert themselves.
[Sidenote: George III]
And again whatever be our opinion about this great splitting up into
two branches of the Anglo-Saxon stock, we of England are painfully
obliged to realise {137} that it was England's fault. It came about
owing to the obstinacy and the despotic ideas of that king of the
Hanoverian Royal family, George III., who was on the throne of Great
Britain. He even tried his hardest, but in vain, to suppress the
newspapers which dared to comment on matters of public interest at
home. As a foreigner, and very ignorant of the temper of the people,
he was in some degree to be excused. He could scarcely be expected
to know better than he did.
There were those about him whom we might have expected to know
better--his Prime Ministers, and notably Lord Grenville and Lord
North. But Lord Grenville was as proud and arrogant as the king
himself, and Lord North was not at all a clever man, and, besides,
was the absolute servant of his king, not daring to assert his voice
against his master's, as Pitt, who had been Prime Minister a little
while before, had dared often and long.
We have to realise that the actual government was very much in the
hands of the king at this date. Then, as now, it was nominally the
Parliament that governed. The Cabinet, in fact, does most of the
business to-day. Under George III. it was George III. that governed,
because the Parliament was full of "the king's friends," as they were
called--members whom affection or bribery or some other form of
interest influenced so that they could be relied on to support any
measures which the king wished to be carried.
The population and the wealth of the British colonies in America had
grown very rapidly. At the beginning of George III.'s reign the
colonists are said to have numbered nearly a million and a half,
which was then just about a fourth of the population of the mother
country. And there was already half a million of slaves in the South.
{138}
The slaves were already creating a difference between the South and
the North, or, shall we say, were emphasising and widening the
difference created by the different type of colonist by which the two
districts were populated. For Virginia and the other southern States
had been occupied largely by emigrants from the West of England and
by aristocratic families, and with the slaves to work for them they
tended to divide up the country into large estates; whereas in the
North, whither the emigrants had come from a lower social stratum at
home, and where they had no slaves to work for them, the holdings
were small.
In religion the Virginians were mainly of the Established English
Church. In Maryland, the inhabitants were chiefly Roman Catholic.
In New England, Puritans were in a large majority; and in
Pennsylvania, the State of William Penn, the people were largely
Quakers.
It was for the sake of religion that most of them, or their forbears,
had left their native land. And just because the religions were so
many and various, it was impossible that there could be any
established Church among them in the land of their adoption. Men
were free to serve God according to the dictates of their consciences.
Each State was governed by an Assembly elected by its own people and
by a Governor appointed by the Crown. The States had their
"charters"--documents in which were drawn up their rights and their
duties--and so long as they acted within the provisions of those
characters the Governor had no right or reason to interfere. The
right of taxing themselves for the purpose of administering their own
affairs was given them. The home Government derived a revenue from
the colonies by the duties charged on articles which they imported by
sea. And the colonies were obliged {139} by their charters to engage
in no trade overseas except with the home country.
This last provision had not been faithfully observed, and a
considerable trade was going on illicitly between the British and the
Spanish colonies. Britain, short of money by reason of the cost of
the Seven Years' War, raised the import duties and enforced the
prohibition against trading with the Spaniards.
Certain of the expenses of the war had been incurred for the
protection of the colonies, and though they might not welcome this
action of the home Government they could not legally resist it. Nor
did they. But then the king and his minister Grenville imposed, or
sought to impose, on them a tax which surely was illegal and which
surely they were within their rights in resisting.
[Sidenote: The Stamp Act]
It was imposed by the piece of legislation known as the Stamp Act,
because its object was to levy money from the colonists by making it
illegal for them to buy and sell certain articles within the colonies
themselves unless they bore a government stamp; for which stamp
payment had to be made to the home Government.
It was a manifest breach of the agreement which had been made with
the colonists, and the principal effect of the passing of this Stamp
Act in 1765 was that the colonists called together a Congress of
delegates from all the colonies and passed a protest against the Act
and a demand for its repeal. More than that; when the ship came into
Boston harbour carrying the first batch of the stamps to be used for
the new tax, they had the stamps seized and retained. It was open
defiance. It was defiance by something like three millions of
determined people, the population having nearly doubled itself since
the beginning of George III.'s reign. Pitt's generous comment upon
it is well known: "Three millions of people so dead to all {140}
feelings of liberty as voluntarily to submit to be slaves, would have
been fit instruments to make slaves of the rest."
It was chiefly Pitt's influence which led to the repeal of the Act in
1766; but much of the good effect of its repeal must have been
spoiled by a measure called the "Declaratory Act," passed at the same
time, declaring that the power of the British Parliament was supreme
over the colonies "in all cases whatsoever." It was as much as to
say, "We yield on this particular point, but we maintain that our
right over you is despotic whensoever we think fit to exercise it."
It did, in fact, claim to enslave, as Pitt indicated, these people,
because, as we have seen all through the story, it was by insistence
on the right to tax themselves that Britons had painfully won
liberty: it was a right expressed in the words "no taxation without
representation": and here was a declaration directly opposed to that
right, for it declared that the home Government might tax the
colonists, although they had no representation in the home Government!
But for the moment the trouble passed. The colonists had all the
substance of victory in the repeal of the Stamp Act: they could
afford to disregard the shadowy threat of the Declaratory Act. They
may have thought that, since the king and Parliament had yielded to
their resistance once, they were not likely to challenge that
resistance again. But King George appears to have been incapable of
learning. Seven years later the trouble broke out anew, again
provoked by the question of taxation. The colonists protested
against import duties which they considered illegal and oppressive,
and their protest was met by the withdrawal of all the duties
objected to except that on tea. They accepted this withdrawal, and
this exception, amicably; but they countered the exception by
generally refusing to drink tea, so that no {141} tea was imported
and no duty on it was payable. It was a situation which would be
laughable if the consequences had not been so tragic.
[Sidenote: Opposition to the tea duty]
Despite the non-tea-drinking resolution, English ships laden with tea
put into Boston harbour towards the end of 1773, doubtless with a
view to landing it. Whether or no it would have been landed we can
never know, for the ships while in harbour were boarded by a mob
disguised as wild Indians and all the tea-chests were thrown into the
sea.
Again it would be laughable but for the tragic consequence. The
colonial Governments deplored the lawless act and were ready to make
compensation. But the king, who had ever bewailed what he called
"the fatal compliance" in the repeal of the Stamp Act, would accept
no expression of regret. Measures were introduced into Parliament
for closing the port of Boston to all commerce, by way of punishment
for the act of "hooliganism," as we now should call it, and virtually
all the liberties granted by charter to the State of Massachusetts,
of which Boston was the chief city, were withdrawn. Troops were sent
out to enforce these decrees, and the general in command was
appointed Governor of the State with powers such as had never before
been vested in any governor of any American colony.
The citizens of Massachusetts refused to obey the enactments of the
Governor, and all the colonies in America sooner or later came to the
support of Massachusetts. And that is no matter for our wonder,
seeing that they must have felt that what was done to Massachusetts
to-day might be done to them to-morrow. They must quickly have
realised that their best hope of liberty lay in opposing a united
front to the servitude that threatened them. It might seem but a
slender hope; yet we may remember that those colonists of a new world
were far more apt to make {142} good fighters than agriculturists or
townsfolk in a long settled land. They were still surrounded by
hostile tribes of Red Indians. Many of themselves, and most of their
forefathers, must have lived with rifle ever ready at hand, for
protection against sudden attack, while they went about their tasks
of peace. They were doubtless quick-witted, as men needs must be who
are constantly facing new conditions. They were tough, determined
men, and in their struggle to be free they found a man to lead
them--George Washington.
Of their tough quality the British soldiers made experience in the
first serious clash of arms at Bunker's Hill. I cannot tell you, in
a story of barest outlines like this, the details of the long
drawn-out fighting, how the cause of the colonists' freedom seemed
now and again all but lost, how the fortunes of the war went this way
and that. For its changes were scarcely less remarkable than those
of the Seven Years' War in Europe. The quality that served the
colonists best and enabled them to win through was that essentially
British quality of refusing to believe themselves defeated. They
endured with an extraordinary steadfastness and they recovered
themselves when beaten to the ground with a marvellous resilience.
Even after fighting had begun, a reconciliation might have been made
had the counsels of Lord Chatham prevailed at home. George
Washington was representative of the great landowners of Virginia.
By their traditions, and also owing to the fact that their state lay
far south of that Massachusetts which was the immediate sufferer by
the British tyranny, the Virginians clung more closely and longer to
the mother country than any of the other colonial children. But
their clinging was of no use. Chatham's good counsel was rejected.
Washington, as leader of the nation in war, was probably the more
looked up to {143} because he had tried so hard for peace. His face
now was set as firmly towards the prosecution of the war as it had
been towards peace while any hope of favourable peace was left. And
every year of the war's duration revealed more and more his rare
character for wisdom, determination, and moderation.
[Sidenote: Course of the War]
A solemn and formal declaration of the independence of the United
States of America was made on July 4th, 1776, but all that year and
the greater part of the next the fighting went hardly for the
colonists until, in October, 1777, the British under Burgoyne
suffered their first serious--and it was very serious--defeat at
Saratoga.
It was a disaster to the British arms which had far-reaching effects.
France was still seething with discontent over the loss of colonies
in the Seven Years' War. Now, encouraged by the event of Saratoga,
she declared war on Great Britain. Spain shortly followed her lead.
And in the same year Lord Chatham died. A little later Holland took
the side of the enemies of Great Britain also, provoked by the claims
of Britain to search the ships of neutral nations for arms or other
"contraband of war" which they might be carrying for the Americans.
Sweden, Russia, and Denmark united in an "armed neutrality" compact
against her, to enforce the freedom of the seas and the right which
they claimed for their ships to cross the ocean without liability to
be searched.
A further effect of Saratoga was that the British armies took the
field no more in the northern States, but concentrated in the south.
There they held their own, if not more than their own, until in 1781
a second blow, even more calamitous than that of Saratoga, befell
them. The generals in command of the sections of the British did not
work in harmony. Lord Cornwallis was disappointed in the support
which he had expected, and entrenched himself behind {144} defensive
lines in York Town in Virginia. The French fleet held the sea.
Washington marched round and cut him off from supplies by land. He
was driven by famine to surrender, with all his army.
It was the end of the war. It was the establishment, never again to
be shaken, of the independence of the United States of America. It
looked grievously like the end of Great Britain as a leading power in
the world. Ireland rose against her in a clamour for what virtually
was independence, Spain claimed Gibraltar as the price of peace, and
France demanded that Great Britain should give over to her the
greater part of British India.
Then, in that very dark hour for England, deliverance came, as more
than once before, from the sea. Lord Rodney had already struck a
disabling blow at a main portion of the Spanish fleet off Cape St.
Vincent; and now, in 1782, he dealt what really was a shattering
stroke on the French fleet in the West Indies. These naval victories
and the repulse of the French and Spanish ships beleaguering
Gibraltar disposed those nations to agree to terms of peace in which
England could acquiesce without dishonour. She lost nothing to
France; to Spain she resigned the island of Minorca and gave back
Florida; and--she lost the United States.
{145}