The events of the American Revolution can never fail to interest
Americans. This assemblage, men of Middlesex, is an assurance that
you cherish the Revolutionary character of your county, and that you
will be true to the obligations and duties which it imposes.
The event we commemorate is not of local interest only. It has,
however, little value on account of the number of men who fought or
fell; but it lives as the opening scene of a great revolution based
on principle, and destined to change the character of human
governments and the condition of the human race. The 19th of April,
1775, is not immortal because men fell in battle, but because they
fell choosing death rather than servitude. The mere soldier who fights
without a cause is unworthy our respect, but he who falls in defence
of sound principles or valued rights deserves a nation's gratitude.
Hence the battlefields of the Revolution shall gain new lustre, while
Austerlitz and Waterloo shall be dimmed by the lapse of ages. Each
nation cherishes and recurs to the leading events in its history.
Time increases the importance of some of them and diminishes the
magnitude of others. Many of them are eras in the history of countries
and the world. Such are the lives of great men--philosophers, poets,
orators, and statesmen. Such are battles and conquests, the foundation
of new empires and the fall of old ones, changes in governments, and
the administrations of renowned monarchs. Such were the conquest of
Greece, the division of the Macedonian empire, the rise and fall of
Rome, the discovery and settlement of this continent, the English
commonwealth, the accession of William and Mary to the British throne,
the American Revolution, and, finally the wars, empire, and overthrow
of Napoleon. A knowledge of these events is not only valuable in
itself, but it enables us to penetrate the darkness which usually
obscures the daily life and character of a people. A true view of the
life of Socrates gives us an accurate idea of Athens and the Athenian
people. The protectorate of Cromwell, the great event in all English
history, presents a view of the British nation while passing from an
absolute government to a limited monarchy, slowly but certainly tending
to republicanism.
The American Revolution was a clear indication in itself of what the
colonies had been, and what the republic was destined to be. Had the
Revolution been delayed, no history, however minute, could have given
to the world as accurate knowledge of the colonists from 1770 to 1780
as it now possesses. It was the full development of all their history;
it was the concise, vigorous, intelligible introduction to their
future. It was a great illustration of pre-existing American
character. Neither religious nor political fanaticism was an element
of the American Revolution. It was altogether defensive--defensive
in its assertion of principles--defensive in its warlike operations.
It is true that the Revolution was an important step towards freedom
and equality, but the Revolutionists did not primarily contemplate the
destruction or abandonment of the principles of the British government,
but rather their preservation and perpetuity; and this in a great
degree they accomplished. The two governments are dissimilar in many
respects, but the principles which lie at the foundation of the one led
to the formation of the other.
The Revolution was conservative. There was always a strong desire in
the American mind to preserve, perpetuate, and improve existing
institutions. Our fathers were not the enemies of government. They
were ready at all times to sustain a government founded upon and
recognizing the principles of equality and justice. Nor did they
imagine that society could exist without the agency of a government in
which force should be an element. In the early part of the struggle,
while they denounced the policy of the British Ministry, they gave to
the principles of the British system an unequivocal support. Many
looked only to a reproduction of the home government upon these shores,
but that was as impossible as the continuance of English authority.
It is vain to search for the particular cause, or even occasion, of the
Revolution. It is not contained in any act of Parliament, or
declaration of rights, or assertion of authority. The truth is, the
colonies had reached that point of conscious strength when they must
become an integral part of the British Empire, or be separated entirely
from it. If there ever had been, there was no longer a feeling of
dependence: they were capable of self-support and protection. There
could be no allegiance except upon principles of equality--and this
England refused. The connection was unnatural and burdensome--the
separation was natural and beneficial. It is not a declaration of the
law alone which limits the control of the father over the son, but in
the order of nature there is a time when the son is capable of self-
judgment, and thereafter as regards rights they are on terms of
equality, and all civil and social arrangements proceed upon that
theory.
But had Great Britain proposed union in 1775 to us, as in 1800 she did
to Ireland, the obstacles were so serious that a separation must
ultimately have taken place. One was the breadth of ocean between the
two parts of the empire--then, and for sixty years, a more serious
obstacle than at present. Another was the peerage--a part of the
British system which could not have been abolished without the
overthrow of the government, and yet incapable of introduction here.
The proposition would have shocked the moral sentiment and the
political principles of the whole people. And finally, our growing
commerce, uneasy under monopolizing restraints and rival domination,
demanded the freedom of the sea. Therefore it is evident that a union
could not have been formed with any hope of permanence and power. Nor
could the separation have taken place at a more fortunate time. The
whole world would have had cause to regret our participation in the
wars of Napoleon, and from them we were saved by independence.
Although the existence of these natural sources of alienation and
disunion must be admitted, they furnish no justification for the
general policy of England--first negligent, then jealous, then
oppressive, and finally reckless and sanguinary.
But we have come together from our various pursuits to contemplate the
virtue and power of the American Revolution in itself and in its
consequences, to show that the sentiment of gratitude is not dead
within us--and finally, and above all, to thank God for the choice
displays of His goodness to the American people.
There are men who deny the virtue of the Revolution. They do it in
obedience to the doctrine that all wars are wrong. But those only can
consistently maintain this doctrine who also maintain that all
governments are wrong. The idea of government includes the idea that
there are governing and governed parties to it. In this country the
two are united. But all governments which have ever existed, including
our own, make war upon those who forcibly question their authority,
undermine their power, violate their laws, outrage the persons or
property of their citizens. These are acts of hostility against a
state, and are prevented or redressed by force--the element of war.
Therefore, in principle, the daily operations of a government in time
of peace are not to be distinguished from its movements in war; and in
war as well as in peace each government is responsible for the manner
in which it exercises its authority.
If we may employ force in support of good government, we may also
employ force in the overthrow of a bad government. If we may forcibly
defend a natural right, we may employ force to regain natural rights
of which we have been disseized. It is admitted amongst us that of all
wars the Revolution is the most easily to be defended; but I desire to
see it occupy the high moral ground which the most paternal and
beneficial government occupies when it defends the natural and
inalienable rights of its citizens.
The real question was this: Who may of right govern the North American
colonies? the colonists themselves, or the Parliament of Great Britain?
In the colonies there was no difference of opinion upon this point,
though there was some as to the mode of securing its exercise. If,
then, the right of self-government were in the colonists, did they use
all proper means of securing its exercise previous to a resort to
arms? They spent ten years in the work of petition, remonstrance and
expostulation--and those ten years of experience convinced the people
that the policy of the British Ministry and Parliament was fixed and
irreversible; that there was only resistance to the execution of this
policy on the one hand, and submission, which must end in abject
slavery, on the other. If the American Revolution be morally
indefensible, then not only are all wars indefensible, but all human
governments, the wisest and the best, equally so.
The sentiment of the Revolution was altogether moral. There was an
entire absence of the spirit of revenge, or rapine, or blood. They
never for a moment placed as much reliance upon their numbers and
strength as upon the justice of their cause and the existence of a
Supreme Ruler, who controls the affairs of men. Such was the tone of
the press, the pulpit and the bar. Everywhere the morality of the
contest was examined and the ground carefully tested at each step. Not
by leading men only, but by all those who had a vote to give in a
town meeting or an arm to sustain the weapons of war. They were no
zealots, like the crusaders; but plain, careful men, of sound moral
principles and correct judgment. It is true that they were descendants
of those who rejoiced when Charles the First was beheaded and James the
Second was dethroned. This feeling, however, had no mixture of cruelty
in it, but it proceeded from a conviction that those monarchs were
unworthy of the throne. Their impulses were always in favor of
liberty. They sympathized with the members of the Republican Party in
England, encouraged them at home, and welcomed them to these shores.
The Revolution was no sudden outbreak or the consummation of the wild
enthusiasm which sometimes characterizes popular movements. All
through our colonial and provincial history, questions had arisen and
been discussed which prepared the public mind for independence. The
strength of the revolutionary spirit in the different colonies bore a
distinct relation to the fervor of the preceding local controversies.
It is impossible to say at what moment the public mind was steadily
directed to independence, either as a possible or desirable termination
of the controversies with the mother country. Both the war with France
and the peace with France precipitated the American Revolution. The
war, by developing the military courage and skill of our people, and
by increasing the burdens of Great Britain, thus affording a pretext
for additional taxation on America. The peace, by relieving the
colonies of the presence of a foe which they dreaded on its own
account, as well as for its active agency in stimulating the Indians to
deeds of hostility. Thus, in fact, England exchanged the thirteen
colonies to which she was allied by blood, language, and similarity of
institutions, for the provinces of France, whose people even now reject
her religion and system of government. Thus the success of the
combined British and American forces in the French war developed the
revolutionary spirit, created new issues, and led to the early
dismemberment of the British Empire.
But omitting the settlement of the country and the causes which led to
it, there are incident all along our history which weakened the power
of the home government. The most important, perhaps, were the decree
in chancery of 1684, which annulled the colonial charter, and the grant
of a new charter in 1692 by William and Mary. The first was an act of
unmitigated despotism, the second of short-sighted selfishness. The
decree in chancery was accepted, because the colonists had no hope of
anything better. Thus the character of the government was changed
fundamentally without the consent of the governed. The arrow aimed at
colonial independence rankled in the public breast until the
independence of America was achieved. The effort to strengthen
British authority, in reality weakened it. Previous to 1684 religious
profession was the basis of political rights, and the clergy gave
direction to the policy of the state. John Cotton well states the
result of the colony charter, to wit: "Such a form of government, as
best serveth to establish their religion, should, by the consent of
all, be established in the civil state. . . . The effect of this
constitution was, first, that none but members of the church were
freemen of the state; secondly, as none could be church members whom
the minister did not approve, it followed that the ecclesiastical ruler
had an efficient negative on the admission of every freeman; and
thereby, as excommunication from the church created a civil, as well as
ecclesiastical disability, it also followed that both the attainment
and continuance of political rights were, to all practical purposes, in
the hands of ecclesiastical rulers." By the provincial charter all
this was abolished. The new government had exclusively for its end
"the things about which the civil power is usually conversant; goods,
lands, honors, the liberties and peace of the outward man." The
influence of the clergy, at all times very great in New England, was
thus separated from the English government, and they were at once
identified in sympathy, hopes, and prospects, with the people of the
colony. As I shall have occasion hereafter to say, this influence was
essential to the success of the Revolution.
It is not likely that any form of government which Great Britain could
have established, especially if it excluded our people from its
control, could have maintained the union twenty-five years longer than
the relation actually existed. The future in some particulars was as
full of hope then to them as it is now to us. Many of their
anticipations were so sanguine that the reality has not been equal to
them. In 1763 an estimate was made that the population of New England
in 1835 would be 4,000,000. From this it is apparent that they had
already tasted prosperity and had come to understand the advantages of
our country, especially in the character of its population, over the
old countries of Europe.
The British Ministry did not discover the means by which the colonies
were to be retained, if retained at all. Our ancestors had little
respect for hereditary privileges and the pretensions of birth. They
were for the most part believers in the equality of the human race;
and, moreover, in their municipal governments, they had learned the
safety and power of universal suffrage. A few men only in England had
an accurate idea of American principles, or the difficulty of holding
in unwilling embrace three million people. Among the representatives
of this small class were the elder Pitt, Burke, and Wilkes.
Pitt declared that "three million people, so dead to all the feelings
of liberty as voluntarily to submit to be slaves, would have been fit
instruments to make slaves of ourselves."
Said Wilkes, "Know, then, that a successful resistance is a revolution,
not a rebellion. Who can tell whether in a few years the independent
Americans may not celebrate the glorious era of the revolution of 1775
as we do that of 1688?" Nor did his prophetic eye fail to penetrate
even the distant future. "Where your fleets and armies are stationed,"
said he, "the possession will be secured, while they continue; but all
the rest will be lost. In the great scale of empire, you will decline,
I fear, from the decision of this day; and the Americans will rise to
independence, to power, to all the greatness of the most renowned
states; for _they build on the solid basis of general public liberty."_
These were words of wisdom; but nations, like individual men, learn
anything sooner than their own faults, and confess anything sooner than
their own mistakes.
It is difficult for the historian to understand the policy of
attempting to control America by force; for nothing is more certain
than that, if we had failed in establishing our independence, Great
Britain would also have failed in subjecting us to her schemes.
After the shedding of blood at Lexington, reconciliation was
impossible; nor is it certain that it could have been accomplished
after the massacre in King Street, in 1770. To be sure the proceedings
of the towns and the tone of all the memorials and petitions indicate
this; but there were unquestionably men who thought it better that the
connection should be dissolved at as early a period as possible. These
men were right, both as regards our condition and the prosperity of
England. Had we remained her subjects, like all colonies, we should
have been of no advantage pecuniarily, and most likely a source of
some expense. But with independence and the Constitution came
prosperity to us, in which, through trade and the increased demand for
her manufactures, England has largely participated.
Had she consented, in 1775, to the peaceful dismemberment of her
empire, the independence of America, under such circumstances, would
have increased her glory, spared her treasury, and saved her laborers
form the pressure of taxes under which they have been weighed down. It
may be, however, that the war was necessary to us. In ante-
Revolutionary times there was not a strong tendency to union--in many
parts of the country the opposite feeling existed. Even the
Constitution was framed with difficulty, and received with hesitation
and doubt. The Constitution is not so much the result as the cause
of our national character. The colonies had had different foundations.
Some were English, some were Dutch, some were Roundheads, some
Cavaliers, some were Catholics, some Protestants, some Baptists, some
Quakers, some Congregationalists; and, finally, some of the colonies
were free and some held slaves. It is apparent that there was not
that tendency to union which was necessary to the formation of the
Constitution. But the mutual dependence which the mutual necessities
of the war produced convinced many of the propriety of a common
government--a government which should be adequate to a time of peace
and to a condition of war--a government which should guard each State
from civil commotion and protect its citizens and commerce in every
part of the world. It is evident that the free surrender of
jurisdiction would have left the colonies to many years of separate
existence, and controversies which might have passed into open
hostility. The period between peace and the adoption of the
Constitution was hardly more desirable than the previous condition of
war. The currency was disordered and without value, the revenue
systems of the different States were various and injurious to
legitimate commerce, while the want of uniform laws upon subjects
altogether national, was everywhere observed. A general government,
adequate to the necessities of the nation, was not established until
the inadequacy of the State governments had been felt in peace and
war; but war more than peace created bonds of sympathy, and inspired
confidence among the States.
The Revolution opened in Massachusetts. This province having been
marked by the British Government, was not at all reluctant to take a
prominent position in the controversies from 1765 to 1775. Therefore
the attack was properly directed here, and here with equal propriety
the first forcible resistance was made to British aggression.
The difficulties with Massachusetts were a century old. The colony
charter had been annulled--her territory on the Merrimack and the
Narragansett had been transferred to neighboring colonies, and the men
whom she had elected to preside in her House of Representatives had
been repeatedly rejected.
There had been from the first an ardent desire in the colony to
establish a free Christian commonwealth, and on the part of England to
maintain, if not extend, the power of the British Parliament. In May,
1774, as the representative of the latter purpose, General Gage arrived
in Boston, and was soon followed by considerable bodies of troops. In
August of the same year measures were taken for a Provincial Congress,
to concert and execute an effectual plan for counteracting the system
of despotism which had been introduced. The Congress instructed the
general officers "effectually to oppose and resist" all attempts to
execute the obnoxious acts of the British Parliament; and by a singular
coincidence on the same day, February 9, 1775, the Parliament pledged
the lives and property of the Commons to the support of those laws.
On the side of the Americans, the courts were declared unconstitutional
and their officers traitors--and the practice of the military art was
earnestly recommended.
By the 1st of September, 1774, the issue was fairly presented. The
claim on one side was the supremacy of the British Parliament, and on
the other the supremacy of the American people. Parliament claimed the
right to legislate for or over the colonies in all cases whatsoever;
this right the colonists denied. Parliament had asserted its supremacy
by the passage, in May, 1774, of "An act for the better regulating the
government of the province of Massachusetts Bay," and "An act for the
more impartial administration of justice in said province." Submission
to these acts was the test. They would not execute themselves. Their
precise character was of no great importance to the people. It was a
question of right, of authority, and not of detail. Had the acts been
less oppressive, or even more so, the principle at issue would not have
been changed. In August, 1774, one hundred and fifty of the best men
of Middlesex assembled in the adjacent town of Concord, and uttered
these memorable words:
"We are obliged to say, however painful it may be to us, that the
question now is, whether by a submission to some of the late acts
of the Parliament of Great Britain, we are contented to be the most
abject slaves, and entail that slavery on posterity after us, or, by
a manly, joint and virtuous opposition, assert and support our freedom.
There is a mode of conduct which, in our very critical circumstances
we wish to adopt--a conduct, on the one hand, never tamely submissive
to tyranny and oppression; on the other, never degenerating into rage,
passion and confusion." Again, "We must now exert ourselves, or all
those efforts which for ten years past have brightened the annals of
this country, will be totally frustrated. Life and Death, or what is
more, Freedom and Slavery, are in a peculiar sense now before us; and
that choice and success, under God, depend greatly on ourselves. We
are therefore bound, as struggling not only for ourselves, but for
future generations, to express our sentiments in the following resolves
--sentiments which we think are founded in truth and justice, and
therefore sentiments we are determined to abide by." In conclusion
they say "no danger shall affright, no difficulties intimidate us; and
if, in support of our rights, we are called to encounter even death,
we are yet undaunted, sensible that he can never die too soon who lays
down his life in support of the laws and liberties of his country."
If we for a moment forget the territorial and popular influence which
belongs to the action of sovereign States and large masses of men, we
shall see no material difference between this language and that of the
Declaration of Independence. It was a pledge of life to the support
of the laws and liberties of the land. It was at once a concise and
forcible review of the past; a just and eloquent defence of the
principles and conduct of the colony; a noble appeal in behalf of
that and future generations. Memorable words for men to utter who
led at Lexington, Concord and Bunker Hill!
James Prescott, of Groton, was chairman of the convention, and
Frances Faulkner, John Hayward and Ephraim Hapgood were members from
the town of Acton. This was the most important step taken prior to
the commencement of hostilities. The convention attracted universal
notice. Copies of its proceedings were sent to the Continental
Congress, then sitting at Philadelphia, and they received cordial
approbation. But even as late as September, 1774, the patriots say to
General Gage, "that their sole intention is to preserve pure and
inviolate those rights to which, as men, and English Americans, they
are justly entitled, and which have been guaranteed to them by his
majesty's royal predecessors." Thus anxious were they at every point
of the controversy to define the ground on which they stood.
From August, 1774, to February, 1775, the British were engaged in
examinations of the country, in landing and drilling the troops,
and in vain attempts to check the progress or expression of the
public sentiment of almost universal hostility.
The province was engaged in the organization and discipline of the
minute men, and the collection and safe-keeping of stores, arms, and
munitions of war; preparations for attack on the one side, and
preparations for defence on the other. Nevertheless, this was a
season for reflection. For six months after the issue was fairly
presented, there were no evidences of fear, and but few indications of
a disposition to conciliate.
General Gage, however, appears not to have entertained the common
notion of English officers, that a small body of troops would put down
all opposition. He informed his government that the time for
"conciliation, moderation, reasoning was over," and that the first
campaign should be opened by the presence of twenty thousand men. This
was wise advice, because it was such advice as a wise man would have
given under the circumstances. It was, however, a fortunate blunder
in the English Government that they rejected it. They held Boston with
the army they sent, and with a larger army they could have done nothing
more. They might have made more frequent and more sanguinary forays
into the country, but the result of the campaign would have been the
same. It was neither possible nor politic for the Americans in the
Revolution to assemble large bodies of troops; therefore, the presence
of twenty, or even fifty, thousand men, would not have been a matter
of great importance to the colonies.
England held us in 1775, as she holds many of her provinces now--by
their own consent, but not otherwise. That consent can be perpetual
only by the recognition of the principles of freedom and equality. The
cause of liberty raises up friends and advocates everywhere. None of
its martyrs ever die unwept, unhonored or unsung. The human heart has
never been truer to any principle than to that of liberty. It is not
in America alone that the cause of freedom excites sympathy and enlists
support. Its voice is as potential, its victories as grateful
elsewhere as with us. And when its banner is borne down and trampled
in the dust, it is not in America alone that true hearts sympathize
and bleed. There are noble men in England, France, Germany, Italy, and
Hungary, upon whom the blow falls, as upon the first victims of
slavery. But in the wisdom of God, the nation that is not just shall
stand finally
"Childless and crownless in her voiceless woe,
An empty urn within her withered hands."
And thus shall it be with Austria. With the judgment of the civilized
world against her, with her people disaffected and disloyal, her
treasury drained and her credit destroyed, she shall wither and fall.
The partition of Poland, and the dispersion of the Poles all over
Europe, have been active agencies in the revolutionary movements of
that continent. Thus do the results of tyranny aid in the overthrow
of tyrants. No government can now be considered strong, whether it
call itself republican or monarchial, unless its foundations are laid
deep in the affections of the people, and based upon the immutable
principles of justice and equality.
In 1775, England had been engaged a century in the work of disunion.
In a hundred years great changes may be wrought. The affections of a
whole people may be diverted from former objects and attached to new
ones. This was the great change which took place in America. England
had ceased to be the _mother country._ The colonists had less regard
for her in 1774 and 1775 than we have now. All fear and, I trust, all
prejudice have disappeared, and we may look upon her as she is.
However England may regard us, we need only view her as a splendid
example of a nation great and powerful by the productiveness of her
soil and mines, the ability of her people, and the liberalizing spirit
of her commerce. In her present external condition, in her vast navy,
her extensive commerce, in all save her insulated and secure position,
we may read our own near destiny. Grasping, ambitious and powerful the
British race certainly is; illiberal, cowardly or mean it certainly is
not. Highly refined it never was, possibly never will be. Neither the
ocean nor the mountain produces the highest refinement of manners or
nicety of scientific investigation; but the shores of the ocean and the
mountain valleys are the birthplaces of great men.
"Chains may subdue the feeble spirit, but thee,
Man of the iron heart, they could not tame;
For thou wert of the mountains, they proclaim
The everlasting creed of liberty."
On the 19th of April, 1775, the first movement was made which really
put in danger the lives and property of the inhabitants of
Massachusetts. Its destination was Concord--its object the destruction
of the stores secreted there, and incidentally the seizure of
obnoxious patriots who were members of the Provincial Congress, which
had then but recently adjourned. It was a test movement in the
controversy. If the British could make incursions and seize the public
property of the province then the colonies would be disarmed and
without the means of resisting the offensive acts of May, 1774. Hence
the protection of the stores was the question of resistance or
submission to the claims of Parliament.
You know the story of the stealthy, midnight march from Boston,--the
successful mission to Adams and Hancock,--the sudden fear which
seized Colonel Smith, the commander of the expedition,--his call for
reinforcements before he knew whether the yeomanry would fight or not,
--the massacre at Lexington,--the alarm of the country,--the gathering
of the minute men,--the arrival of the foe at Concord,--the division
of the invading party to secure the entrance to the town,--the
engagement at the Old North Bridge, where the resolutions of the county
of Middlesex of August, 1774, were embodied in action,--the confusion
consequent upon so serious a matter as resistance to the Parliament and
Ministry of England,--the retreat of the invading party,--the hot
pursuit,--the final flight,--and the electric shock which the
proceedings of April 19 gave to the colonies and to Great Britain.
These events were long and well remembered, and the historian cannot
omit to give them importance in his view of the progress of liberty,
and especially of American liberty. But my respect for your
familiarity with the opening, thrilling scenes of the Revolution
counsels me to omit the details, even when we remember those whose
names have been made illustrious by the parts they bore. All shall
live upon the just page of our own historian. But the interest which
belongs to the events of that day is not more on account of the
important results of the war, than from the sense of duty under
which the contest was commenced. It was this conviction which made
American invincible. It produced that singular and highest quality
of martyrdom which endures more than the worst enemies can inflict.
It was this sense of duty which gave courage to our soldiers and
inspired all our families with that charity and patriotism on which
the army was so dependent for clothing and the necessities of life.
The sentiment was almost universal that the colonies were oppressed,
that the policy of the mother country was in violation of its own
principles of government, that the colonists were refused the rights
and privileges of British subjects, and lastly that Great Britain was
determined to introduce a commercial system purposely detrimental to
colonial interests; in fine, that commerce was to be paralyzed,
manufactures discouraged, and agriculture reduced to a state of
vassalage.
The public attention had been for many years directed to the
possibility of a rupture,--none knew when or how terrible it would be.
There had, however, been a long season of preparation. The courage
necessary to meet the crisis was quite different from that which the
mere soldier requires.
In 1775 our fathers were called upon to judge of the morality of the
course they were entering, not for themselves only, but for their
country and for posterity.
They commenced as rebels; whether their career should be that of
patriots or traitors was in some degree uncertain. But a high sense of
duty overcame all obstacles and led them with a firm reliance on Divine
Providence to take the great step which must lead to freedom and honor
or slavery and disgrace.
Acton had uniformly supported the policy of the colony, and early
pledged itself to the town of Boston in favor of non-importation and
non-consumption of foreign products. It declared in strong language
its hostility to all those who did not subscribe to the merchants'
agreement; even to denying them personal notice and social
conversation. In November, 1774, a company of minute men was raised
and placed under the command of Isaac Davis. It contained the hope of
the town,--young men from sixteen to thirty years of age. They were
frequently drilled at the public cost, and they acquired a good deal
of discipline. On the morning of the 19th of April the town of Acton
was alarmed by some unknown person who hurried rapidly on to more
interior points. Early in the day Captain Davis with his company,
enrolling about forty men, reached the northerly side of Concord River
and took his proper position on the left of the line under command of
Colonel Barrett. About a hundred British troops were near the bridge,
but they soon removed to the opposite side of the river. Another small
body had gone to Colonel Barrett's in search of stores secreted there.
Before any blood was shed the officers of the provincial troops held a
council at which it appears to have been understood that Captain Davis
should take the right of the line. Whether the change was made in
consequence of the superior equipment, or better discipline, or reputed
valor of the Acton men, there is no reason to doubt it was made, and
made with the consent, if not at the request, of the officers and
principal men upon the ground. But for whatever reason made, it was
none the less creditable to the command which at once assumed the post
of honor and the position of danger.
The column was led by Major Buttrick, Colonel Robinson and Captain
Davis. Colonel Robinson was lieutenant-colonel of Prescott's regiment,
and on this occasion he volunteered for no purpose but the
encouragement of the men. At the first general fire from the British,
Captain Davis and Abner Hosmer, a private in Davis' company, were
killed. Almost instantly the fire was returned, and one British
soldier was killed and several were wounded. The engagement was at an
end.
The two parties seem to have been equally confused by the fight. The
Provincials manifested no fear, but the contest so long anticipated
had actually taken place,--blood had been shed,--men had fallen on
both sides. The responsibility of the moment was very great. In
contemplation of law they had resisted the British Ministry, they had
attacked the British throne.
The regulars retired to the village, and, the divisions of troops
having joined each other, they commenced a retreat which for several
miles was a precipitous flight.
Hayward fell mortally wounded at Lexington in a personal recontre with
a British soldier. It was fatal to both, though Hayward survived
several hours. With a religious patriotism he assured his father that
the day's doings gave him no regret.
Patriotism is one of the most exalted virtues. It is not, as some
would have us believe, a mere excitement, or even a passion. It is
high among the virtues which men in this state of existence may
exhibit. Patriotism is not merely a barren attachment to the country
in which we were born, nor is it that narrow yet holy feeling which
leads us to look with affection upon the spot of our nativity,--upon
the hills over which we have roamed in childhood and youth; but a large
and noble view of the entire nation,--a regard for its institutions,
social, moral, civil and religious, crowned by a manly spirit which
leads its possessor to peril all in their defence. The patriot is
devoted and self-sacrificing.
Such were Davis, Hayward and Hosmer. Their names were comparatively
humble, yet they were men of duty, men of religion, men of a liberal
patriotism. Davis was about thirty years of age. He was both a
husband and a father. He left his family that morning with a firm
conviction that he should see them no more. If his lip quivered and
his eye moistened as he trod his own freehold for the last time, fear
had no part in those emotions. He had not accepted a command and
trained his men for months without having anticipated the actual
condition of war which was then immediately before him.
Hayward and Hosmer were both sons of deacons in the church and were
sent forth that morning upon an errand of death with the paternal
blessing. Neither churches nor clergy were indifferent to the result.
The clergy had counseled resistance. The people had imbibed with their
religious opinions and sentiments a deep hatred of oppression. The
three who fell were young men and well educated for the age in which
they lived. They were of the yeomanry. They did not serve on that
day upon compulsion nor for mercenary motives. They were the servants
of the province; they were martyrs in the cause of freedom.
"Their names mankind shall hold
In deep remembrance, and their memory shall be
A lasting monument, a sacred shrine
Of those who died for righteousness and truth."
Colonel Robinson was a native of the county of Essex, but then a
citizen of Westford. In 1775 he was forty years of age, a veteran of
the French War, and at the time of his death in 1805 he had been
engaged in nineteen battles. Of his courage there was no doubt.
Thaxter says of him, "a braver and more upright man I never knew." At
Bunker Hill he served under Prescott, who pronounced him both honorable
and brave.
His epitaph claims for him the honor of commanding at Concord Bridge,
but the weight of evidence is in favor of Major Buttrick as the active
commander. And Robinson's fame can well spare even so distinguished
an honor as the command at the North Bridge. The name of Major
Buttrick, with that of Captain Davis, was early consecrated by the
Legislature of the Commonwealth.
From ten to twelve o'clock, of the morning of the 19th, there was a
cessation of hostilities. This respite was the natural result of the
policy and purposes of the two parties. The Americans' great idea was
resistance. Whatever may be said to the contrary, the officers in
command did not regard it within their line of duty to make an attack.
The instruction of the Provincial Congress were explicit to the
contrary. It was deemed a great point to show that the British fired
first. But even admitting the purpose of the Americans to make an
attack, the village of Concord was most unfavorable. The British
would have had the advantage of position, and at any moment might have
inflicted irreparable injury in the destruction of the town. To
whatever reason the alleged apathy of the Americans during those two
hours is attributable, it was most fortunate for the cause they
defended.
The purpose of the invaders, it is quite certain, was a retreat to
Boston rather than a renewal of hostilities at Concord. The fierce
and continued attack of the Americans during the afternoon was
induced by a knowledge of what had happened at Lexington, by the
presence of large numbers of men, and possibly by the advice and
counsel of Adams and Hancock.
Of Davis' company there were men among the survivors who deserve well
of posterity. Thomas Thorp was an apprentice in Acton, having been
taken from the alms-house of the town of Boston. He not only served
at Concord but during the war; and his love of country shone as bright
in the evening as in the morning of his days.
In Massachusetts the revolution was carried on by towns. These
organizations were proof against all the attacks of the British
Government. For ten years previous to 1775, they had passed
resolutions and taken the initiatory steps of resistance. The
colonies were more cumbrous, and opinion when expressed was necessarily
representative. Representatives may go beyond, or fall short of, the
opinions of their principals, but the people themselves make no such
mistakes. A New England town meeting is the most perfect democracy
which the world has ever seen. Citizens are upon an equality. Votes
are not given on account of wealth, standing, or official position,
but as the primary, legitimate right of each citizen. Even at the
commencement of the Revolution we had had great experience in voting.
It was not a questionable right. At all times, even when valued rights
of British subjects were invaded, that of voting had never been
assailed. Towns not only chose their selectmen and representatives,
but with great freedom they expressed opinions upon public affairs and
the conduct of public men, even to the King upon his throne. They had
voted men and supplies in the French war, and in the Revolution they
did the same. In this province the people were reached through the
towns almost exclusively. They voluntarily assumed the burdens of the
war, and hence they had great influence in its prosecution. It is a
singular and most agreeable fact that the Revolution was eminently a
popular movement; and in proportion as we appreciate correctly the
burdens of the war does our respect increase for the men who
voluntarily assumed them. When the army was famishing, when the
soldiers were destitute of clothing, when men and money were needed,
the appeal was made to the towns, and in their meetings the subject
was considered and determined. I know not of a more gratifying fact
in the Revolution than this, and I may venture to say that it is one
whose importance has been sometimes overlooked.
The spirit of patriotic Boston was the spirit of every municipality
in the province, and there is no instance of devotion superior to that
manifested by all when Boston was the special object of ministerial
wrath. Her injuries were felt by each town as though the blow were
aimed at its own independence and integrity. And so in fact it was.
But had Boston even fallen there were still strongholds of rebellion
throughout the province, and the principles of the revolution would
have survived.
Nor did the towns cease their efforts when they had voted supplies for
the prosecution of the war. They took part early in favor of
independence. In every town men sprung up equal to the crisis which
existed. Our local histories will bear to posterity resolutions as
immortal in sentiment and principle as the Declaration of Independence
itself. The resolutions of the neighboring towns of Concord express
the views of Massachusetts towns. They say: "As men we have a right
to life, liberty and property; as Christians, we in this land (blessed
be God for it) have a right to worship God according to the dictates
of our own consciences; and as subjects we have a right to personal
security, personal liberty, and private property. These principal
rights we have as subjects of Great Britain; and no power on earth can
agreeably to our constitution take them from us, or any part of them
without our consent." Where such principles existed the Declaration of
Independence was a necessity; therefore when it came, most of our towns
were prepared not only to accept it but to sustain it. They readily
affirmed in their own names the principles which had been declared, and
assumed the responsibilities which had been taken by their
representatives in the Continental Congress.
Nor did their active agency in the cause of liberty and government
cease here. They declared the principles on which the State government
ought to be based and the manner of framing it. The resolutions of
Acton and Concord are full and explicit on this point. They deny the
authority of the Legislature to frame a constitution because, says the
town of Acton, "a constitution properly framed has a system of
principles established to secure the subjects in the possession of
their rights and privileges, against any encroachments of the
Legislative part; and it is our opinion that the same body that forms
a constitution, have, of consequence, a power to alter it; and we
conceive, that a constitution, alterable by the supreme legislative
power, is no security to the subjects, against the encroachments of
that power on our right and privileges." And it was resolved, "that
the town thinks it expedient that a convention be chosen by the
inhabitants of the several towns and districts in this state, being
free to form and establish a constitution for this state." The
constitution proposed by the Legislature was rejected by a vote of
about three to one.
Similar resolutions were passed by Concord, and the legislative
constitution was unanimously rejected. But the town of Acton, early
and alone, so far as I can ascertain, made a distinct declaration in
favor of an American Republic. On the 14th of June, 1776, twenty days
before the Declaration of Independence, the inhabitants declared "that
the many injuries and unheard of barbarities, which the colonies have
received from Great Britain, confirm us in the opinion, that the
present age will be deficient in their duty to God, their posterity
and themselves, if they do not establish an American republic. This
is the only form of government we wish to see established."
It is true that the idea of a common government was somewhat general,
but not my any means universal even in Massachusetts, while Maryland
had not then declared herself in favor of independence.
It was a liberal, enlarged, progressive idea which looked from beneath
the lowering clouds of war, tyranny and hardship to the existence of an
American republic which should include at least all the territory
within the jurisdiction of the thirteen colonies. For even at a much
later period there were men of exalted attainments who doubted the
applicability of the republican principle to large sections of
territory, and who would have sough in the division of the country, or
in the establishment of what was then deemed a stronger government
that security which they did not expect in an American republic.
The revolution through the town governments had three principal points
of support. First, _popular intelligence;_ secondly, _the influence of
the clergy;_ thirdly, _the possession of land._
The age of the Revolution was an intelligent, thinking age. It cannot
be considered as one of refinement, but there was a great deal of
original, independent, manly, intellectual activity. It was an age
of great men, both in this country and England. It could boast of the
Pitts, Burke, Fox and Sheridan; of Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, the
Adamses, Patrick Henry and the Lees. It was an age of useful
intelligence, of eminent practical wisdom. The leading minds of a
country to some extent represent its general characteristics. A
popular sentiment which sustained with fidelity the measures of non-
intercourse, of resistance and of war; which gave a generous,
affectionate, intelligent support to the leaders of the Revolution,
must have been liberal, sagacious and honest. The common-school system
had been in operation more than a century and a quarter, and under its
influence the patriotism of the Revolution was highly intelligent.
The clergy generally were warm supporters of the war. Most of them
were graduates of Harvard College, whose influence was always on the
patriot side. The influence of the clergy was very great in New
England; hence the two most powerful springs of human action, religious
and political enthusiasm, were blended in the breasts of our fathers.
Some of the clergy, like Emerson of Concord, gave their personal
services to the American cause; while others, like Adams and Clark,
made the points in controversy with the mother country themes of
religious discourse. The religion of Massachusetts was patriotic.
The Rev. Zabdiel Adams, of Lunenburg, in a sermon preached during the
war, uttered these prophetic words: "To encourage us to persevere, let
us anticipate the rising glory of America. Behold her seas whitened
with commerce, her capitals filled with inhabitants, and resounding
with the din of industry. See her rising to independence and glory.
Contemplate the respectable figure she will one day make among the
nations of the earth; behold her venerable for wisdom, for counsel,
for might; flourishing in science, in agriculture and navigation, and
in the arts of peace. Figure to yourselves that this your native
country will ere long become the permanent seat of liberty, the retreat
of philosophers, the asylum of the oppressed, the umpire of contending
nations, and we would hope the glory of Christ."
In the Revolution a large portion of the people were land-holders,--men
who answer to the old Saxon term yeoman. Of course it is not possible
for every man to own land, nor is it essential that every man should be
a land-holder, yet it is evident that a community loses nothing by an
increase of proprietors.
When a man owns land, even though his acres be not broad, he feels a
new interest in the welfare and freedom of the state. The possession
of land creates a certain and desirable independence. Inducements
should therefore be held out to every branch of society, that the
ennobling idea of home may be realized in every bosom. Even to this
day our unoccupied lands are the storehouse of American freedom,--they
are father's mansions to which every son of the Republic, be he
prodigal or not, may turn his steps and find a welcome.
And when our population shall have reached two hundred million, may
there still be beneath the flag of the Republic a home for the
oppressed and a refuge for the down-trodden.
In 1775 the spirit of emigration had not developed itself in the
New England character; it was latent until Wayne's victory in 1794
prepared for our fathers the fertile lands and inviting climate of
Ohio. The proportion of land-holders in Massachusetts was much
greater then than at present, though the absolute number is now quite
equal to that of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
In all other countries the possession of land has been the element of
aristocracy; but with us it has been made subservient to the principles
of republicanism. And as an aristocracy cannot exist unless the land
is aggregated in the hands of a few, so a republic cannot exist unless
the land is divided among the many. There can be no doubt that the
great proportion of land-holders was an element of strength in the
Revolution. Patriotism is defined as love of country,--and part of
that love proceeds from the fact that within and under the protection
of our country is our home.
On the 19th of April, 1775, the men of Acton left their homes upon
these hills, and their families anxious and disconsolate, that they
and their descendants might have homes undisturbed by the hand of the
oppressor.
On the 20th of April, 1775, these homes were deserted that all might
pay the last tribute of respect to Davis, Hayward and Hosmer. And
now after the lapse of seventy-six years the descendants of that
generation have met, not as then to mingle their tears at the grave
of departed friends and heroes, but to utter with all of filial respect
the names of worthy men, and to impress with new power upon their
hearts the sentiment of gratitude for all who served and suffered in
the cause of American freedom. And as we contemplate the glorious
death of those who fell, shall we not say,
"Since all must life resign,
Those sweet reward which decorate the brave
'Tis folly to decline,
And steal inglorious to the silent grave."
As compared with the existence of the world only a short space of time
has intervened between the 19th of April, 1775, and this day, yet three
generations of men have trodden these fields and aided in the great
work of perfecting and preserving American institutions. With what
confidence, fellow citizens, did your ancestors look to independence
and the establishment of the form of government under which we have
lived and prospered as a people? Beyond this form neither the patriot
nor statesman can look with hope.
Who will propose to the now united American people either a return to
the almost forgotten confederacy of 1778, or the establishment of
several governments? Nobody,--nobody. When we contrast our
institutions with those of any other country, how ought we to thank God
for the measure of personal happiness and political security we have
enjoyed.
Not that our institutions are perfect,--nor that there is nothing which
the philanthropist may deplore or the statesman condemn. All the
anticipations of our ancestors have not been realized. The past is
not all perfect; the future will not always cheer us with sunshine and
smiles; but he is a misanthrope who allows his opinions to be
controlled by the exceptions to the general current of our national
career.
Our years of independence have been years of almost uninterrupted
prosperity, but they have borne to the grave those who took part in
the later as well as earlier contests of the Revolution. Of Lexington
and Concord, one only remains; and from all the battlefields of the
war this occasion has brought together but two.
But, fellow citizens, the few survivors are not only venerable, they
are sacred men. They are the last of a noble generation. They
periled their lives in behalf of liberty, when
"'Twas treason to love her and death to defend."
Fortunate all are you whose eyes rest to-day on these few surviving
soldiers of the Revolution. Fortunate are the youth and children
who on this occasion and in this presence can pledge themselves to
the cause of constitutional liberty. Of these men the next generation
shall know only from history. Fortune then that your lives began
before theirs ended.
The patriot should do homage to these men, the statesman may sit at
their feet and learn lessons of fidelity to principle, and citizens
all may see how noble ends the life begun in the performance of duty.
To-day the commonwealth of Massachusetts and the town of Acton dedicate
this monument to the memory of the early martyrs of the Revolution, and
consecrate it to the principles of liberty and of patriotism. Here its
base shall rest and its apex point to the heavens through the coming
centuries. Though it bears the names of humble men, and commemorates
services stern rather than brilliant, it shall be as immortal as
American history. The ground on which it stand shall be made classical
by the deeds which it commemorates. And may this monument exist only
with the existence of the republic; and when God in His wisdom shall
bring this government to nought, as all human governments must come to
nought, may no stone remain to point the inquirer to fields of valor or
to remind him of deeds of glory. And finally, may the republic
resemble the sun in his daily circuit, so that none shall know whether
its path were more glorious in the rising or in the setting.
XVII
SUDBURY MONUMENT
At the session of 1851 the Legislature made an appropriation of five
hundred dollars to aid the town of Sudbury in building a memorial to
Captain Wadsworth and the men of his command who were cut off at
Sudbury in the year 1676 in the war known as King Philip's War.
As Governor I was made a member of the committee for the erection of a
monument. The first subject was the style of the memorial. The
artists of Boston and vicinity sent designs and plans. Some of these
were very attractive. It happened, however, that a member of my
Council, the Hon. Isaac Davis, of Worcester, had returned recently from
a visit to Europe. He informed me that he had seen at Lucca in Italy,
a pyramidal structure which was considered the finest monument of its
sort to be found in Europe. I sent immediately for the proportions of
the pyramid and the Sudbury monument was modeled upon the same plan. I
am of the opinion that it fully justified the claim made in behalf of
the original.
A serious difficulty occurred in regard to the inscription upon the
Sudbury monument. The original slab was erected in the year 1692 by
Benjamin Wadsworth, a son of Captain Wadsworth. The son was then
President Wadsworth of Harvard College. The inscription stated that
the fight took place April 18, 1676. In later times it was discovered
that two old almanacs, one kept by Minister Hobart of Hingham and one
by Judge Sewall, contained entries of the fight _on the 21st of April,
1676._ I examined the question and became satisfied that those entries
were made on the day when the intelligence was received by the writers.
Accordingly I followed President Wadsworth as to the date. The
_Genealogical Register,_ under the charge of a Mr. Drake, in two
articles criticized my inscription. I replied in the _Register_ and
ended my article with a sentence which Drake struck out. The sentence
was this: _"The testimony of President Wadsworth as to the time of his
father's death is of more value than all the theories of all the
genealogists who have existed since their vocation was so justly
condemned by St. Paul."_
A few months later I appeared in the court to try a case which involved
my client's reputation for truth, and a thousand dollars in money. To
my dismay I saw that Drake was foreman of the jury. I lost my case,
but I think justly upon the evidence. My principal witness failed to
make good upon the stand the statement that he had made to me in my
office. One of the perils in the practice of law is that clients and
clients' witnesses either make misstatements or fail to make full
statements of the facts.
In the middle-third part of the nineteenth century, the date of
Sudbury Fight was a topic of serious controversy by genealogists and
historians. I was responsible for the date that appears upon the
monument that was erected in the year 1852. The conclusion that I had
reached was condemned by the _Genealogical Register_ and by a committee
of the Society. In the year 1866 I reviewed the evidence, on which my
opponents relied, and I marshaled the evidence in support of the
accuracy of the date that appeared upon the monument. In the year 1876
the town of Sudbury observed the bi-centennial on the 18th day of
April, thus giving sanction to the date on the monument.
At the dedication of the Sudbury monument I made the following address: