_The Norse Adventures_
“What parts of the American coasts that adventurous Icelander, Bjarne
Herjulfson, saw cannot be determined with certainty,” says that learned
antiquarian, Professor R. B. Anderson, “but from the circumstances of
the voyage, the course of the winds, the direction of the currents, and
the presumed distance between each sight of land, there is reason to
believe that the first land that Bjarne saw in the year 986 was the
present Nantucket; the second, Nova Scotia; and the third, Newfoundland.
Thus he was the first European whose eyes beheld any part of the
American continent.”
But Bjarne made no exploration of the shores, and could take back no
definite report of them. What little he had to say, however, stimulated
the curiosity of Leif Erikson, son of Erik the Red, and aroused a
determination to go in quest of the unknown lands. He bought Bjarne’s
ship and set sail, in the year 1000, with a crew of thirty-five men, far
away to the southwest of Greenland. They landed in Helluland
(Newfoundland), afterwards in Markland (Nova Scotia), and eventually
found their way to the shores of Massachusetts Bay, or Buzzard’s Bay, or
Narragansett Bay, the exact locality being disputed by local
antiquarians. The likelihood seems to favor Fall River. Finding
abundance of grapes, they called the place of their sojourn Vinland.
They remained there two years, and on their return to Greenland, another
expedition was fitted out by Leif’s brother Thorwald. But Leif is
entitled to the credit of being the first pale-faced man who planted his
feet on the American continent.
_The Icelandic Sagas_
The old Norse narrative writings are called “Sagas,” a word which, as
John Fiske remarks, we are in the habit of using in English as
equivalent to legendary or semi-mythical narratives. To cite a saga as
authority for a statement seems, therefore, to some people as
inadmissible as to cite a fairy-tale. In the class of Icelandic sagas to
which that of Erik the Red belongs, we have quiet and sober narrative,
not in the least like a fairy-tale, but often much like a ship’s log.
Whatever such narrative may be, it is not folk-lore. These sagas are
divisible into two well-marked classes. In the one class are the
mythical or romantic sagas, composed of legendary materials; they belong
essentially to the literature of folk-lore. In the other class are the
historical sagas, with their biographies and annals. These writings give
us history, and often very good history. They come down to us in a
narrative form which stamps them as accurate and trustworthy chronicles.
_Foreknowledge_
Strenuous efforts have been made in the interest of the Portuguese
descendants of Columbus to depreciate the importance of the Norse
discoveries of America. Not only has the Americanist Society—whose
members devote much of their time to the study of the pre-Columbian
history of the Western Continent—traced in genuine sagas full
particulars of the voyages and settlements of the Norsemen, from the
first expedition in 986 to the last in 1347, but they have shown that
Columbus, during a visit to Iceland in 1477, must have been informed of
the Norse discoveries, and must have profited by the knowledge thus
acquired.
_Erikson and Columbus_
If we are bound by circumstances to put Columbus in the forefront, we
are not bound to ignore an early discovery for the reality of which
there is so much authentic evidence. Sceptical comments come from
critics who have not sufficient knowledge of Norse customs or of Norse
literature, and are consequently not in a position to judge fairly the
amount of credence to be put in Scandinavian tradition. Experience with
oral tradition as exhibited among the Aryans of India might have
suggested that the old Western mistrust of that method of transmitting
information was founded in ignorance alone. For we now know that it is
quite possible to hand down the longest statements through ages, without
loss or change. But in the present case the written word has come in aid
of oral tradition, and the oldest records of Leif Erikson’s discovery of
Vinland are so near the period of the event that the chain of testimony
may be regarded as practically complete. It is all but certain that Leif
Erikson landed on the main continent, whereas it is not at all certain,
but extremely problematical, whether Columbus ever saw, much less set
foot on, the continent of America. The probability is that he did not
get nearer than the Bahamas.
The result of modern investigation has been to reduce the glory of
Columbus considerably, and to raise questions and doubts concerning him
which, if they cannot be answered satisfactorily, must carry the
depreciating movement farther. The prior discovery of the Northmen has
been taken out of the realm of fable and established as an historical
fact. On the other hand, the visit of the Northmen did not lead to
permanent settlement. They may have colonized a little. They may have
had relations with some of the American Indians, and even have taught
the aborigines some of the Norse sagas. But they did not stay in the new
land. After a longer or shorter period they sailed away, and left it
finally, and no emigration from Iceland to Vinland was incited by the
tales they told on their return home.
The incident was ended so far as they were concerned, and it was not
reopened. Now, in the case of Columbus, it may be said that the first
step was quickly followed up, and that there was no solution of
continuity in the development of the new world. Certainty and perfectly
clear demonstration is not to be had in the matter, but Columbus has the
advantage of tradition, of familiarity, of the facility with which an at
least apparent connection is established between the man and what came
after him.
_The Cabots_
On the 24th of June, 1497, John Cabot, a Venetian merchant, living in
England, with his young son Sebastian, first saw, from the deck of a
British vessel, “the dismal cliffs of Labrador,” through the early
morning mist. This was nearly fourteen months before Columbus, on his
third voyage, came in sight of the mainland of South America.
Thenceforth the continent of North America belonged to England by right
of discovery. Sailing along the coast many leagues without the sight of
a human being, but observing that the country was inhabited, he landed
and planted a large cross with the standard of England, and by its side
the Venetian banner of St. Mark,—the one in loyalty to his king, Henry
VII., the other in affection for Venice, the Queen of the Adriatic. From
that hour the fortunes of this continent were to be swayed by the
Anglo-Saxon race. The name of Cabot’s vessel—the first to touch our
American shores—was Matteo (Matthew).
_The Name America_
Amalric was the name which compacted the old ideal of heroism and
leadership common to all Germanic tribes, the ideal that stands out most
clearly in the character of Beowulf—the Amal of Sweden, Denmark, and
Saxon England. It meant what the North European hero stories
described,—“The man who ruled because he labored for the benefit of
all.”
In Norman France this name was softened to Amaury. Thus, a certain
theologian who was born in the twelfth century at Bène, near Chartres,
is called indifferently Amalric of Bène or Amaury of Chartres. England
in the thirteenth century could show no more commanding figure than
Simon of Montfort l’Amaury, Earl of Leicester, to whom King Henry once
said, “If I fear the thunder, I fear you, Sir Earl, more than all the
thunder in the world.” A Norman Amalric was that Earl Simon, creator of
a new force, and in its outcome a democratic one, too, in English
politics. J. R. Green says, “It was the writ issued by Earl Simon that
first summoned the merchant and trader to sit beside the knight of the
shire, the baron, and the bishop in the parliament of the realm.” In
Italy, after the Gothic invasion, the northern name suffered
comparatively slight euphonic changes, which can be easily traced. As
borne by a bishop of Como in 865 it became Amelrico or Amelrigo. But the
juxtaposition of the two consonants “l” and “r” presented a difficulty
in pronunciation which the Italians avoided: they changed “lr,” first,
to double “r,” and then to a single “r.” Nevertheless, six hundred years
after Bishop Amelrigo died, the Florentine merchant, explorer, and
author—third son of Anastasio Vespucius, notary of Florence—usually
retained the double “r” in his own signature, writing “Amerrigo
Vespucci,” and, by the way, accenting his Gothic name on the penultimate
(Ameri´go, not Ame´rigo).
The orthography of Amelric was still in this transitional stage in Italy
at the end of the fifteenth century. In Spain the name must have been
rare, since it was often used alone to designate the Florentine during
his residence in that country, the audit books in the archives of
Seville containing entries in this form: “Ha de haber Amerigo.” There
was, apparently, no other Amerigo or Amerrigo in the Spanish public
service early in the sixteenth century.
We must look again toward the north for the scene of the next important
change, and among the men of a northern race for its author. Martin
Waldseemueller, a young German geographer at St. Dié, in the Vosgian
Mountains, whose imagination had been stirred by reading, as news of the
day, Amerigo’s account of his voyages to the New World, bestowed the
name America upon the continental regions brought to light by the
Florentine. It is not enough to say, with John Boyd Thacher (in his
“Columbus,” Volume III.; compare also Thacher’s valuable “Continent of
America”), that Waldseemueller “suggested” this designation. As editor
of the Latin work, the “Cosmographiæ Introductio” (May 5, 1507), he
stated most distinctly, with emphatic reiteration, his reasons for this
name-giving; placed conspicuously in the margin the perfect geographical
name, “America,” and at the end of the volume put Vespucci’s narrative.
Further, on a large map of the world, separately published, he drew that
fourth part of the earth “quarta orbis pars,” which was the
“Introductio’s” novel feature, and marked it firmly “America.”
The contention of Professor von der Hagen (in his letter to Humboldt,
published in 1835 in “Neues Jahrbuch der Berliner Gesellschaft für
Deutsche Sprache,” Heft 1, pp. 13–17), that Waldseemueller was
distinctly conscious of giving the new continent a name of Germanic
origin, may appeal to enthusiastic Germanists, but the original text
clearly opposes that conclusion. “Quia Americus invenit,” says the
Introductio, “Americi terra sive America nuncupare licet.” But the case
stands otherwise, when we ask why Europeans generally caught up the
word, as a name appropriate to the new Terra Firma of vaguely intimated
contours, but of defined and appalling difficulty—a vaster, untried
field for the exercise of proved Amal ability. Its association with so
many men before Vespucci certainly commended the name to northern taste.
We may be thankful that no one has succeeded in the various attempts
that have been made to call our part of the world by the relatively very
weak name Columbia, which signifies Land of the Dove. We may be thankful
that “America” means so much more than “Europe”—in respect to which
Meredith Townsend says, “The people of the ‘setting sun’—that seems to
be the most probable explanation of the word Europe.” The “setting sun”
is precisely the wrong thing. And if we wish to get somewhat nearer to
the time of the name-giving of the Old World Continents, we shall find
that Herodotus says, “Nor can I conjecture why, as the earth is one, it
has received three names, Asia, Europe, and Libya—the names of
women; ... nor can I learn who it was that established these artificial
distinctions, or whence were derived these appellations.”
We scarcely need to point out the appropriateness of a name which
exactly fits the Saxon, Teutonic, and Latin conditions here. It is also
clear that we need not ask whether Amerigo Vespucci was worthy to have
his name given to a hemisphere. His name, it has been shown plainly, was
but the cup that held the essence.
_What it Cost to Discover America_
As John Fiske remarks, “It is not easy to give an accurate account of
the cost of this most epoch-making voyage in all history. Conflicting
statements by different authorities combine with the fluctuating values
of different kinds of money to puzzle and mislead us.” Historians are
inclined to accept the statement of Las Casas with regard to the amount
of Queen Isabella’s contribution, whether it came from a pledge of the
crown jewels, or from the Castile treasury, but the amount of the loan
from Santangel, and of the levy upon the port of Palos, is open to
question. The researches of Harrisse have been considered authoritative,
but now comes the German investigator, Professor Ruge, whose estimates
involve a large reduction from calculations heretofore made. He says,—
“The cost of the armament of the first fleet of Columbus, consisting of
three small vessels, is given in all the documents as 1,140,000
maravedis. What this sum represents in our own money, however, is not so
easy to determine, as the opinions upon the value of a maravedi vary
greatly. The maravedi—the name is of Moorish origin—was a small coin
used at the end of the fifteenth century and the beginning of the
sixteenth century. All prices were expressed in maravedis, even if they
ran into the millions. It is, however, a fact well known that almost all
coins which continue to bear one name decrease in value in the course of
centuries. The Roman silver denarius sank finally to common copper
coins, known in France as ‘dermer,’ in England as ‘d’ and in Germany as
‘pfennig.’ The original gulden-gold, as the name indicates—has long
since become a silver piece which nowhere has the value of fifty cents.
So, also, the value of the maravedi became less and less, until a
century ago it was hardly equal to a pfennig (one-quarter of a cent).
One may also reason backward that it was much more valuable four
centuries ago.”
Ruge comes to the conclusion, after the examination of various decrees
of Ferdinand, that the value of a maravedi was about 2.56 pfennig, or
less than three-quarters of a cent in modern money. Therefore the
contribution of 1,140,000 maravedis made by Queen Isabella was, he says,
29,184 marks, or about $7296, without taking into consideration the
higher purchasing power of money in Columbus’s days. “The city of Palos
also,” adds the article, “had to furnish out of its own means two small
ships manned for twelve months. The cost to the State, therefore, of the
journey of discovery was not more than 30,000 marks ($7500). Of this sum
the admiral received an annual salary of 1280 marks ($320); the
captains, Martin, Juan, and Anton Perez, each 768 marks ($192); the
pilots, 542 to 614 marks each ($128 to $153), and a physician only 153
marks and 60 pfennigs ($38.50). The sailors received for the necessaries
of life, etc., each month 1 ducat, valued at 375 maravedis, about 9
marks and 60 pfennigs ($2.45).”
_The American Indians_
With reference to the ancestors of the native tribes, and their probable
origin, the following syllabus of Charles Hallock’s paper in the
_American Antiquarian_ is interesting:
The Indians, or Indigenes, of both North and South America, originated
from a civilization of high degree which occupied the subequatorial belt
some ten thousand years ago, while the glacial sheet was still on.
Population spread northward as the ice receded. Routes of exodus
diverging from the central point of departure are plainly marked by
ruins and lithic records. The subsequent settlements in Arizona, Mexico,
New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, and California indicate the successive
stages of advance, as well as the persistent struggle to maintain the
ancient civilization against reversion and the catastrophes of nature.
The varying architecture of the valleys, cliffs, and mesas is an
intelligible expression of the exigencies which stimulated the builders.
The gradual distribution of population over the higher latitudes in
after years was supplemented by accretions from Europe and Northern Asia
centuries before the coming of Columbus. Wars and reprisals were the
natural and inevitable results of a mixed and degenerated population
with different dialects. The mounds which cover the midcontinental
areas, isolated and in groups, tell the story thereof. The Korean
immigration of the year 544, historically cited, which led to the
founding of the Mexican empire in 1325, was but an incidental
contribution to the growing population of North America. So also were
the very much earlier migrations from Central America by water across
the Gulf of Mexico to Florida and Arkansas.
_The Landing of the Pilgrims_
The actual authorities upon this subject are very few. But they have
been carefully collated by Mr. Gay, in his “Bryant’s History of the
United States,” and the story is there clearly told. Mr. Gay says that
the Pilgrims probably did not land first at Plymouth, and certainly not
on the 22d of December, a date erroneously perpetuated as Forefathers’
Day in celebration of the event. In summarizing the results of careful
investigation G. W. Curtis says it was on the 21st of November, 1621,
new style, that the “Mayflower” cast anchor in the bay which is now the
harbor of Provincetown, Cape Cod. The Pilgrims went ashore, but found no
water fit for drinking, and in a little shallop which the “Mayflower”
had brought, a party began to explore the coast to find a proper place
for a settlement, and on the 16th of December, N. S., they put off for a
more extended search. On Saturday, the 19th, they reached Clark’s
Island, in Plymouth Bay or Harbor, so called from Clark, the chief mate,
who first stepped ashore, and on Sunday, the 20th, they rested and
worshipped God. On Monday, the 21st, they crossed from the island to the
mainland, somewhere probably in Duxbury or Kingston, which was the
nearest point, and coasted along the shore, finding in some spots fields
cleared for maize by the Indians, and copious streams. They decided that
somewhere upon that shore it would be best to land and begin the
settlement, but precisely where they did not determine, and sailed away
again on the same day, the 21st, to rejoin the “Mayflower” at Cape Cod.
The next day, therefore, the 22d of December, the Plymouth shore and
waters relapsed into the customary solitude, and the little band of
Pilgrims were once more assembled upon the “Mayflower,” many miles away.
It was not until the 25th of December that the famous ship left Cape
Cod, and on the 26th she dropped anchor between Plymouth and Clark’s
Island. Not before the 30th was Plymouth finally selected as the spot
for settlement, and it was not until the 4th of January, 1621, that the
Pilgrims generally went ashore, and began to build the common house. But
it was not until the 31st of March that all the company left the ship.
_The First Legislative Assembly_
Jamestown, the first English settlement in the United States, was
founded in 1607. The story of the early colonists during the first
twelve years is a record of continuous misfortune; it is a story of
oppressive government, of severe hardships, of famine, and Indian
massacre. After languishing under such distressful conditions, the
colony was reinforced with emigrants and supplies, the despotic
governor, Argall, was displaced, and the mild and popular Sir George
Yeardley was made captain-general. He arrived in April, 1619, and under
the instructions he had received “for the better establishing of a
commonwealth,” he issued a proclamation “that those cruel laws, by which
the planters had so long been governed, were now abrogated, and that
they were to be governed by those free laws which his majesty’s subjects
lived under in England. That the planters might have a hand in the
governing of themselves, it was granted that a general assembly should
be held yearly, whereat were to be present the governor and council,
with two burgesses from each plantation, freely to be elected by the
inhabitants thereof, this assembly to have power to make and ordain
whatsoever laws and orders should by them be thought good and profitable
for their subsistence.”
In conformity with this “charter of rights and liberties,” summonses
were sent out to hold elections of burgesses, and on July 30, 1619,
delegates from each of the eleven plantations assembled at Jamestown.
Under this administrative change, this inauguration of legislative
power, salutary enactments were adopted, and the new representatives
proved their capacity and their readiness to meet their
responsibilities. It was the first legislative assembly in America, the
beginning of self-government in the English colonies.
_The Signing of the Declaration_
“July 4, 1776. The Declaration of Independence having been read was
agreed to as follows: [Here should appear the Declaration without any
signatures or authentication, as is the case with one of the manuscript
journals.]
“_Ordered_, That the Declaration be authenticated and printed. That the
committee appointed to prepare the Declaration superintend and correct
the press, etc.
“July 19. _Resolved_, That the Declaration passed on the 4th be fairly
engrossed on parchment, with the title, etc., and that the same, when
engrossed, be signed by every member of Congress.
“Aug. 2. The Declaration agreed to on July 4, being engrossed and
compared at the table, was signed by the members, agreeably to the
resolution of July 19.
“Nov. 4. The Hon. Matthew Thornton, Esq., a delegate from New Hampshire,
attended and produced his credentials.
“_Ordered_, That Mr. Thornton be directed, agreeably to the resolve
passed July 19, to affix his signature to the engrossed copy of the
Declaration, _with the date of his subscription_.
“Jan. 18, 1777. _Ordered_, That an authentic copy of the Declaration of
Independence, with the names of the members of Congress subscribing the
same, be sent to each of the United States, and they be desired to have
the same put upon record.
“——, 1781. _Whereas_, It has been made to appear to this present
Congress that the Hon. Thomas McKean was a member of Congress from
Delaware in the year 1776, and that on July 4 of that year he was
present and voted for the Declaration of Independence, but being absent
with the army at the time of the general subscription of that instrument
on Aug. 2: therefore,
“_Resolved_, That the said Hon. Thomas McKean be allowed to affix his
signature to the aforesaid Declaration, he adding thereto the date of
such subscription.”
The engrossed copy of the Declaration reads: “In Congress, July 4, 1776.
The Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America——”
and after the Declaration follow the signatures. To make the record
accurate and true to history, the signatures should have been preceded
by some such recital as this: “The foregoing Declaration having been
agreed to on July 4, by the delegates of the thirteen United Colonies,
in Congress assembled, and the same having been engrossed, is now
subscribed, agreeably to a resolution passed July 19, by the members of
Congress present this 2d day of August, 1776.”
_The Authorship of the Declaration_
In the inscription prepared by Thomas Jefferson for his tomb, he
preferred to be remembered as the “author of the Declaration of
Independence and of the Statute of Virginia for religious freedom, and
Father of the University of Virginia.” With regard to the first of these
claims to originality two questions have been in controversy,—the first
upon the substance of the document, and the second concerning its
phraseology in connection with the Mecklenburg declaration of May, 1775.
The latter, Mr. Jefferson declared he had not seen at the time, and as
to the germ, it is obvious in the conclusions upon government of the
leading thinkers of the age in Europe and America. The assumption that
Jefferson unaided wrote the great state paper, unequalled as it is in
eloquence and dignity, is based upon weak evidence, and it is noteworthy
that he did not make a positive claim until after his eightieth year.
In the early days of the republic there were many who believed that he
did not write it; but for reasons which have been set forth, as follows,
the real author was unknown.
Six months before independence was declared, an anonymous pamphlet was
published, entitled “Common Sense.” Its success was unprecedented. The
copyright was assigned to the colonies by the author, and not until
several editions were issued was it accredited to Thomas Paine. In a
literary point of view it was one of the finest productions in the
English language. But the author was not an aspirant for literary fame;
his sole aim was the achievement of American independence.
Paine was the bosom friend of Franklin. They were both very secretive
men, and Franklin, who had induced Paine to come to America, knew that
he could trust him. Franklin was a member of the committee to draft a
declaration. The task was assigned to Jefferson, and in a very few days
it was completed.
Franklin handed to Jefferson a draft already prepared by Paine, and
assured him that he could trust the writer never to lay claim to its
authorship. What could Jefferson do but use it? It was far superior in
style to anything he could produce. So with a few verbal changes be
reported it, and it was adopted by the Congress, after striking out
several passages more eloquent than any that remain, as, for instance,
one about the slave trade.
The adoption of this declaration placed Jefferson in an embarrassing
position. Not daring to say outright that he was its author, he
studiously evaded that point whenever it became necessary to allude to
the subject. But at last, when Franklin had been dead thirty-three years
and Paine fourteen years, Jefferson ventured to claim what no one then
disputed. It would never have done for him to name the real author, and
who could be harmed, he doubtless thought, by taking the credit to
himself? But the science of criticism, like the spectrum analysis which
reveals the composition of the stars, points unerringly to Thomas Paine
as the only man who could indite that greatest of literary masterpieces,
the Declaration of American Independence.
_Eminent Domain—National Sovereignty_
It is well known to the students of our history that, though Maryland
was fully represented in the Continental Congress and took an active
part in all the deliberations of that body and answered every
requisition which was made upon her for money and troops, sending more
than 20,000 of her best sons to the army under Washington, whose courage
and conduct on every battle-field of the Revolution elicited the warm
commendation of their great commander, she did not sign, and for years
resolutely refused to sign, the Articles of Confederation, and did not
sign those articles until March 1, 1781, about eight months before the
surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown, which marked the close of our
revolutionary struggle.
In a vague and general way the reason of that refusal was also known.
Intimations of it crop out occasionally in the pages of some of our
annalists. But the full meaning and the subsequent and most important
effect of that refusal and of that reason were not fully understood and
realized until they were explained and unfolded by the investigations of
two of the most accomplished scholars of our time. The late Herbert B.
Adams, professor of history, Johns Hopkins University, in a paper read
before the Maryland Historical Society April 9, 1877, entitled
“Maryland’s Influence upon the Land Cessions to the United States,” and
also published in the Johns Hopkins University studies, third series,
No. 1, in January, 1885, and the late Professor John Fiske, of Harvard
University, in his work entitled “The Critical Period of American
History,” published in 1888, for the first time fully investigated and
discussed this question of the public lands and the profound
significance of the action of Maryland in the Continental Congress in
regard to it.
Of the vastly important, but to his time little understood, effect of
this action on the part of Maryland, Professor Adams says, page 67 of
his paper: “The acquisition of a territorial commonwealth by these
States was the foundation of a permanent union; it was the first solid
arch upon which the framers of our Constitution could build. When we now
consider the practical results arising from Maryland’s prudence in
laying the keystone to the old confederation only after the land claims
of the larger States had been placed through her influence upon a
national basis, we may say with truth that it was a national
commonwealth which Maryland founded.” And again, on page 30 of the same
paper, Professor Adams observes: “The credit of suggesting and
successfully urging in Congress that policy which has made this country
a great national commonwealth, composed of free, convenient, and
independent governments, bound together by ties of permanent territorial
interests, the credit of originating this policy belongs to Maryland,
and to her alone. Absolutely nothing had been effected by Rhode Island,
New Jersey, and Delaware, before they ratified the articles, toward
breaking down the selfish claims of the larger States and placing the
confederation upon a national basis.... Maryland was left to fight out
the battle alone, and with what success we shall shortly see.”
The history of the struggle which Maryland made, single-handed and alone
in the Congress of the States, to compel the surrender of the Western
lands to the United States by the States which claimed them, namely
Virginia, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, North Carolina, and
Georgia, is graphically told in this interesting paper, and reflects the
highest credit on the courage, resolution, statesmanship, and patriotism
of the General Assembly of Maryland and her representatives in the
Congress. The struggle was a long and arduous one, but in the end
Maryland won. Her position was that, without regard to the titles more
or less doubtful and defective on which these claims were founded or
pretended to be founded, and which, by the way, she utterly denied, the
fact remained that when these lands were acquired from Great Britain, as
one of the results of the war we were waging, they would be won by the
common expenditure of the blood and treasure of the people of all the
States, and that therefore they should become the common property and
the inheritance of all the States, as a national domain to be governed
and controlled by the national sovereignty, and to be parcelled out
ultimately into “free, convenient, and independent States,” and to
become members of the federal Union, on an equality with the other
States, whenever their population and circumstances should justify.
Maryland thus formulated the elemental idea of territorial acquisition
and the purposes of that acquisition, namely, the creation out of such
territory, the common property of all the States, of new and independent
Commonwealths and coequal members of the federal Union, for that
purpose, and that purpose only, and the idea of a national sovereignty
as a logical consequence of such acquisition for that purpose.
The struggle was begun by Maryland by the passage, in her General
Assembly, of instructions to her delegates in Congress on December 15,
1778,—instructions which were read and submitted to that Congress on May
21, 1779. A declaration of the same tenor and effect as the instructions
had been previously adopted and transmitted to Congress by Maryland and
laid before that body without debate on January 6, 1779. Virginia
answered these instructions and declaration by a remonstrance from her
House of Burgesses, in which she alluded, with something of arrogance,
to these papers and protested against any attempt or design by the
Congress to diminish any of her territory, and reasserted all her
exorbitant and unfounded claims to the Western lands and her purpose to
relinquish none of them. She had even gone so far as to organize
Illinois and Kentucky into counties of Virginia.
The fight was now on. In the beginning Rhode Island, New Jersey, and
Delaware had supported Maryland, and with her had protested against
these pretensions of the larger States; but under influences which it is
now difficult to account for they soon fell from her side and left her
to make that fight alone. She encountered vehement opposition from the
landed States, as they grew to be denominated.
“But of these protesting States,” says Professor John Fiske, in the work
referred to, page 191, “it was only Maryland that fairly rose to the
occasion and suggested an idea, which seemed startling at first, but
from which mighty and unforeseen consequences were soon to follow.” A
motion had been made in the Congress to the effect that the United
States, in Congress assembled, shall have the sole and exclusive right
and power to ascertain and fix the western boundary of the States making
claim to the Mississippi, and lay out the land beyond the boundary so
ascertained into separate and independent States, from time to time, as
the numbers and circumstances of the people may require. This motion was
submitted by Maryland, and no State but Maryland voted for it.
Professor Fiske subsequently observes: “This acquisition of a common
territory speedily led to results not at all contemplated in the theory
of union upon which the Articles of Confederation were based. It led to
‘the exercise of national sovereignty in the sense of eminent domain,’
as shown in the ordinances of 1784 and 1787, and prepared men’s minds
for the work of the Federal Convention. Great credit is due to Maryland
for her resolute course in setting in motion this train of events. It
aroused fierce indignation at the time, as to many people it looked
unfriendly to the Union. Some hotheads were even heard to say that, if
Maryland should persist any longer in her refusal to join the
Confederation, she ought to be summarily divided up between the
neighboring States and her name erased from the map. (Maryland had heard
such threats before in her colonial period and had been unjustly
stripped of large parts of her territory, as laid down in her charter,
by both Virginia and Pennsylvania.) But the brave little State had
earned a better fate than Poland. When we have come to trace out the
result of her action we shall see that just as it was Massachusetts that
took the decisive step in bringing on the Revolutionary War, when she
threw the tea into the Boston harbor, so it was Maryland that, by
leading the way toward the creation of a national domain, laid the
corner-stone of our federal Union.”
Maryland, unawed by these threats, resolutely adhered to her
determination, as announced by her repeatedly in the General Assembly of
the State and through her representatives in the Congress, not to sign
the Articles of Confederation until this great wrong should be righted,
until these Western lands should be ceded to the United States for the
common benefit of all the States. Her resolution was rewarded. Maryland
finally won. The great States yielded, some cheerfully, some with
reluctance, and surrendered their Western lands to the United States,
New York leading the way, followed by Massachusetts, and finally by
Virginia and the other States. Maryland, having accomplished her great
purpose, instructed her two distinguished sons, then representatives in
the Congress, John Hanson and Daniel Carroll, to sign the Articles of
Confederation on her behalf, which they did on March 1, 1781, and thus
the Articles of Confederation were completed. The satisfaction which
this action of Maryland gave was very general, and Madison gives
expression to it in a letter to Thomas Jefferson when subsequently the
negotiations were begun between Maryland and Virginia which culminated
ultimately in the Federal Convention, the formation of our Constitution,
and the establishment of the government of the United States.
_Gun Flints Wanted_
On the 4th of July, 1776, the adoption of the Declaration of
Independence was not the only event of the day during the session of the
Continental Congress. Attention was given to other important matters,
among them the passage of the following resolution:
“That the Board of War be empowered to employ such a number of persons
as they shall find necessary to manufacture flints for the continent,
and for this purpose to apply to the respective Assemblies, Conventions,
and Councils or Committees of Safety of the United American States, or
committees of inspection of the counties and towns thereunto belonging,
for the names and places of abode of persons skilled in the manufacture
aforesaid, and of the places in their respective States where the best
flint-stones are to be obtained, with samples of the same.”
The flint-lock of the old-time muskets and pistols has long since been
superseded by the detonating or percussion cap. It passed out of use
when goose-quills gave way to metallic pens, sand boxes to blotters, and
red wafers to mucilage or paste in convenient jars.
_The Master Spirit of the Revolution_
In his “Historical View of the American Revolution,” George W. Greene
says: “When the colonists resolved upon resistance to British invasion,
the first question that presented itself, in the effort to organize the
independent militia of the different States for the general defence was,
who should command this motley army? As long as each colony provided for
its own men, it was difficult to infuse a spirit of unity into
discordant elements. There could be no strength without union, and of
union the only adequate representative was the Continental Congress. To
induce the Congress to adopt the army in the name of the United Colonies
was one of the objects toward which John Adams directed his attention.
With the question of adoption came the question of commander-in-chief;
and here personal ambition and sectional jealousies were manifest in
various ways.”
Washington’s was, of course, the first name that occurred to Northern
and Southern men alike; for it was the only name that had won a
continental reputation. But some New England men thought that they would
do better service under a New England commander, like General Ward, of
Massachusetts; and some Southern men were not prepared to see Washington
put so prominently forward. Then New England was divided against itself.
While Ward had warm advocates, John Hancock had aspirations for the high
place which were not always concealed from the keen eyes of his
colleagues. Among Washington’s opponents were some “of his own
household,” Pendleton of Virginia being the most persistent of them all.
At last John Adams moved to adopt the army, and appoint a general; and a
few days after, June 5—the interval having been actively used to win
over the little band of dissenters—Washington was chosen by a unanimous
vote.
In a memorable address, Edward Everett remarked: “The war was conducted
by Washington under every possible disadvantage. He engaged in it
without any personal experience in the handling of large bodies of men,
and this was equally the case with all his subordinates. The Continental
Congress, under whose authority the war was waged, was destitute of all
the attributes of an efficient government. It had no power of taxation,
and no right to compel the obedience of the individual. The country was
nearly as destitute of the _material_ of war as of the means of
procuring it; it had no foundries, no arsenals, no forts, no navy, no
means, no credit. The opposing power had all the prestige of an ancient
monarchy, of the legitimate authority of disciplined and veteran armies,
of a powerful navy, of the military possession of most of the large
towns, and the machinery of government for peace and war. It had also
the undoubted sympathy of a considerable portion of the people,
especially of the wealthy class. That Washington, carrying on the war
under these circumstances, met with frequent reverses, and that the
progress of the Revolution as conducted by him seemed often languid and
inert, is less wonderful than that he rose superior to such formidable
obstacles, and was able, with unexhausted patience and matchless skill,
to bring the contest eventually to an auspicious and honorable close.”
_The Constitutional Convention_
In his admirable memorial of the One Hundredth Anniversary of the
Constitution of the United States, Hampton L. Carson says: “During the
years of bankruptcy, anarchy, and civil paralysis, which preceded the
formation of a more lasting Union, Washington constantly urged the
establishment of a stronger national government. He saw the folly, the
weakness, and the insignificance of a government powerless to enforce
its decrees, dependent upon the discretion of thirteen different
Legislatures, swayed by conflicting interests, and therefore unable to
provide for the public safety, or for the honorable payment of the
national debt. He clearly saw the necessity for a government which could
command the obedience of individuals by operating directly upon them,
and not upon sovereign States. In his private as well as official
correspondence during an early period of the war, in his last words to
his officers at Newburgh, in his speech when resigning his commission at
Annapolis, and after his return to Mount Vernon, in his letters to
Hamilton, Jefferson, Mason, and Madison, he constantly and vigorously
urged the idea of a stronger Union, and a surrender of a portion of the
sovereignty of the States. When the Federal Convention was determined
on, it was natural as well as appropriate that he should be selected as
one of the delegates from Virginia, and, as a proof of the magnitude and
solemnity of the duty to be performed, he was placed at the head of the
State delegation. Upon his arrival in Philadelphia, in May, 1787, he
called upon the venerable Franklin, then eighty-one years of age, and
the great soldier and the great philosopher conferred together upon the
evils which had befallen their beloved country and threatened it with
dangers far greater than those of war. Upon the nomination of Robert
Morris, Washington was unanimously chosen president of the
Convention,—an honor for which he expressed his thanks in a few simple
words, reminding his colleagues of the novelty of the scene of business
in which he was to act, lamenting his want of better qualifications, and
claiming indulgence towards the involuntary errors which his
inexperience might occasion. In that body of fifty-five statesmen and
jurists—such men as Hamilton, Madison, Dickinson, Rutledge, Morris, and
Carroll—Washington did not shine as a debater. Of oratorical talents he
had none, but the breadth and sagacity of his views, his calmness of
judgment, his exalted character, and the vast grasp of his national
sympathy, exerted a powerful influence upon the labors of the
Convention. So far as the record shows, he seems to have broken silence
but twice,—once when he disapproved of the exclusive origination of
money-bills in the House of Representatives, a view which he abandoned
for the sake of harmony, and again when he wished the ratio of
representation reduced. The proceedings were held in secret, and not
until after four months of arduous and continuous toil did the people
know how great or how wonderful was the work of the men who builded
better than they knew. When the Constitution was before the people for
adoption, and the result was in doubt, Gouverneur Morris wrote to
Washington as follows:
“I have observed that your name to the Constitution has been of infinite
service. Indeed, I am convinced that if you had not attended the
Convention, and the same paper had been handed out to the world, it
would have met with a colder reception, with fewer and weaker advocates,
and with more and more strenuous opponents. As it is, should the idea
prevail that you will not accept the Presidency, it will prove fatal in
many parts. The truth is that your great and decided superiority leads
men willingly to put you in a place which will not add to your present
dignity, nor raise you higher than you already stand.”
In the interval neither the voice nor the pen of Washington was idle. In
many of his most interesting letters he constantly urged upon his
countrymen the necessity of adopting the work of the Convention as the
only remedy for the evils with which the country was afflicted. When the
new government went into operation he was unanimously chosen as the
first President, and was sworn into office in the city of New York,
April 30, 1789. In 1792, though anxious to retire, he was again chosen
to the executive chair by the unanimous vote of every electoral college;
and for a third time, in 1796, was earnestly entreated to consent to a
re-election, but firmly declined, thus establishing by the force of his
example a custom which has remained unbroken, and which has become a
part of the unwritten law of the Republic.
_Division of Legislative Authority_
The late Francis Lieber related the following story in a letter to a
friend:
“An incident of more than usual interest occurred to-day, just after the
class in constitutional law was dismissed, at the university. I had been
lecturing upon the advantages of the bicameral system, had dismissed the
class, and was about to leave the room, when a young man, whom I knew
had taken instructions under Laboulaye, in Paris, approached me, and
said that what I had urged in regard to the bicameral system reminded
him of a story which he had heard Laboulaye relate. I was interested, of
course, and, as the class gathered around, he proceeded with the
following: Laboulaye said, in one of his lectures, that Jefferson, who
had become so completely imbued with French ideas as even to admire the
uni-cameral system of legislation, one day visited Washington at Mount
Vernon, and, in the course of the conversation that ensued, the
comparative excellence of the two systems came up for consideration.
After considerable had been said on both sides, finally, at the
tea-table, Washington, turning sharply to Jefferson, said,—
“‘You, sir, have just demonstrated the superior excellence of the
bicameral system, by your own hand.’
“‘I! How is that?’ said Jefferson, not a little surprised.
“‘You have poured your tea from your cup out into the saucer to cool. We
want the bicameral system to cool things. A measure originates in one
house, and in heat is passed. The other house will serve as a wonderful
cooler; and, by the time it is debated and modified by various
amendments there, it is much more likely to become an equitable law. No,
we can’t get along without the saucer in our system.’
“Jefferson, of course, saw that a point had been made against his
argument; but whether he was frank enough to say so, the story-teller
did not relate.”
_Progress toward Position as a World Power_
In the case of the North American colonies, connection with the main
stream of history may be said to have taken place in the latter half of
the eighteenth century, especially during the Seven Years’ War and the
war of Independence. Consequently, the earlier history of North America
would naturally be considered about the close of the reign of Louis XV.
and immediately before the French Revolution. But, although an intimate
relation between America and Europe was established during the period
1756–83, and although the outbreak of the French Revolution was partly
due to this connection, it was severed after the Peace of Versailles to
be renewed only occasionally during many years. For upwards of a century
from that date the United States remained in a sense an isolated
political entity, standing forth, indeed, as a primary example of a
successful and progressive federated republic, and, as such, exerting a
constant influence on the political thought of Europe, but not otherwise
affecting the course of European affairs, and little affected by them in
return. The United States seldom came into close political contact even
with Great Britain during the greater part of the nineteenth century,
and still more rarely with other Powers. It is only during the last
generation that an extraordinary industrial and commercial development
has brought the United States into immediate contact and rivalry with
European nations; and it is still more recently that, through the
acquisition of transmarine dependencies and the recognition of
far-reaching interests abroad, the American people have practically
abandoned the policy of isolation, and have definitely, because
inevitably, taken their place among the great Powers of the world.