_THE SECOND CHARTER._
Charles II. died Feb. 6th, 1685, and was succeeded by his brother, James
II. News of this was brought to Boston by private letter, but no
official notification was made to the governor. In a letter to him,
however, he was told that he was not written to as governor, for as much
as now he had no government, the charter being vacated. These events
threw the people of Boston into great uncertainty and trouble as to what
they were in future to expect from England. Orders were received to
proclaim the new king, which was done "with sorrowful and affected
pomp," at the town house. The ceremony was performed in the presence of
eight military companies of the town, and "three volleys of cannon" were
discharged. Sir Edmund Andros, the new Royal Governor, arrived in Boston
Dec. 20th, 1686, and, as was to be expected, he was not regarded
favorably by the people, especially as his first act after landing was a
demand for the keys of the Old South Church "that they may say prayers
there." Such a demand from the new governor could not be tolerated by
the now superseded governing authority of Boston, and defy it they
would. The Puritan oligarchy stoutly objected to being deprived of the
right to withhold from others than their own sect the privileges of
religious liberty. To enjoy religious liberty in full measure they had
migrated from the home of their fathers, but in New England had become
more intolerant than the church which they had abandoned, and became as
arbitrary as the Spanish inquisition. Under direction of the king,
Andros had come to proclaim the equality of Christian religion in the
new colonies. Too evidently this was not what was wanted here.
At last came the news of the landing of the Prince of Orange in England
and the abdication of James the Second. The people of Boston rose
against Andros and his government and seized him and fifty of his
associates and confined them in the "Castle" until February, 1690, when
they were sent to England for trial; but having committed no offence,
they were discharged. Andros was received so favorably at home that
under the new administration he was appointed governor of Virginia and
Maryland. He took over with him the charter of William and Mary college,
and later laid the foundation stone of that great institution of
learning.
[Illustration: PROCLAIMING KING WILLIAM AND QUEEN MARY, 1689.
This is said to have been the most joyful news ever before received in
Boston.]
Andros has never received justice from Massachusetts historians. Before
his long public career ended he had been governor of every Royal
Province in North America. His services were held in such high esteem
that he was honored with office by four successive monarchs.
It is gratifying to notice that at last his character and services are
beginning to be better appreciated in the provinces over which he ruled,
and we may hope that in time the Andros of partisan history will give
place, even in the popular narratives of colonial affairs, to the Andros
who really existed, stern, proud and uncompromising it is true, but
honest, upright and just; a loyal servant of the crown and a friend to
the best interests of the people.
Not only were the governor and all of his adherents arrested and thrown
into jail, but Captain George, of the Rose frigate, being found on
shore, was seized by a party of ship carpenters and handed over to the
guard.
So strong was the feeling against the prisoners that it was found
necessary to guard them against the infuriated people, lest they should
be torn into pieces by the mob. The insurrection was completely
successful, and the result was that the resumption of the charter was
once more affirmed. A general court was formed after the old model, and
the venerable Bradstreet was made governor. Nothing now seemed wanting
to the popular satisfaction but favorable news from England, and that
came in a day or two. On the 26th of May, 1689, a ship arrived from the
old country with an order to the Massachusetts authorities to proclaim
King William and Queen Mary. This was done on the 29th, and grave,
Puritanical Boston went wild with joy, and all thanked God that a
Protestant sovereign once more ruled in England. This has been said to
have been the most joyful news ever before received in Boston.
May 14, 1692, Sir William Phipps, a native of Massachusetts, arrived in
Boston from England, bringing with him the new Charter of the province,
and a commission constituting him governor of the same. Unfortunately he
countenanced and upheld the people in their delusion respecting
witchcraft, and confirmed the condemnation and execution of the victims.
The delusion spread like flames among dry leaves in autumn, and in a
short time the jails in Boston were filled with the accused. During the
prevalence of this moral disease, nineteen persons in the colony were
hanged, and one pressed to death. At last the delusion came to an end,
and the leaders afterwards regretted the part they had taken in it.
The new Charter of Massachusetts gave the Province a governor appointed
by the Crown. While preserving its assembly and its town organization,
it tended to encourage and develop, even in that fierce democracy, those
elements of a conservative party which had been called into existence
some years before by the disloyalty and tyranny of the ecclesiastical
oligarchy.
Thus, side by side with a group of men who were constantly regretting
their lost autonomy, and looking with suspicion and prejudice at every
action of the royal authorities, there arose another group of men who
constantly dwelt upon the advantages they derived from their connection
with the mother country. The Church of England also had at last waked up
to a sense of the spiritual needs of its children beyond the seas. Many
of the best of the laity forsook their separatist principles and
returned to the historic church of the old home. This influence tended
inevitably to maintain and strengthen the feeling of national unity in
those of the colonists who came under the ministration of the church. In
all the Royal Provinces there was an official class gradually growing
up, that was naturally imperial rather than local in its sympathy. The
war with the French, in which colonists fought side by side with
"regulars" in a contest of national significance, tended upon the whole
to intensify the sense of imperial unity.
"The people of Massachusetts Bay were never in a more easy and happy
situation than at the conclusion of the war with France in 1749. By
generous reimbursement of the whole charge of L183,000 incurred by the
expedition against Cape Breton, the English government set the Province
free from a heavy debt by which it must otherwise have remained
involved, and enabled by it to exchange a depreciating paper medium,
which had long been the sole instrument of trade, for a stable medium of
gold and silver. Soon the advantage of this relief from the heavy burden
of debt was apparent in all branches of their commerce, and excited the
envy of other colonies, in each of which paper was the principal
currency."[5]
[5] Hutchinson, History Mass. Bay, Vol. III., page 1.
The early part of the eighteenth century was filled with wars: France,
England and Spain were beginning to overrun the interior of North
America. Spain claimed a zone to the south, and France a vast territory
to the north and west of the English colonies. Each of the three
countries sought aid from the savage to carry on its enterprises and
depredations. While the English colonies were beset on the north by the
French, on the south by the Spaniards, on the west by native Indians
along the Alleghany Mountains, and were compelled to depend on the
"wooden walls of England" for the protection of their coasts, they were
then remarkably loyal to the Crown of England. Their representative
assemblies passed obsequious resolutions expressing loyalty and
gratitude to the King, and the people; and erected his statue in a
public place. This feeling of loyalty remained in the minds of a large
majority of the people down to the battle of Lexington.
In May, 1756, the English government, goaded by the constantly continued
efforts of the French to ignore her treaty obligations in Acadia, and
her ever-harrassing, irritating "pin-pricks" on the frontiers of the
English colonies, declared war against France. Long before this official
declaration the two countries had been, on this continent, in a state of
active but covert belligerency. Preparations for an inevitable conflict
were being made by both sides. French intrigue and French treachery were
met with English determination to defend the rights of the mother
country and of her children here. Money was pledged to the colonies to
aid in equipping militia for active service, and the local governments
and the inhabitants of every province became as enthusiastic as the home
government in the prosecution of war.
On the northern and western borders of New England and of New York,
along the thin fringe of advanced English settlements bordering
Pennsylvania and Virginia, Indians had long been encouraged or employed
in savage raids, and in Nova Scotia, which, by the treaty of Utrecht had
been ceded to England, systematic opposition to English occupation was
constantly kept up.
Intriguing agents of the French government, soldiers, priests of the
"Holy Catholic" church--all were active in a determined effort to check
and finally crush out the menacing influence and prosperity of the
growing English colonies.
The ambushing and slaughter of Braddock's force on the Monongahela, the
removal of Acadians from Annapolis Valley, the defeat of Dieskau at
Crown Point, the siege and occupation of Fort Beausejour, all occurred
before the formal declaration of war. Clouds were gathering. Men of
fighting age of the English colonies volunteered in thousands; British
regiments, seasoned in war, were brought from the old country to the
new, and with them and after them came ships innumerable. A fight for
life of the English colonies was at hand. The brood of the mistress of
the seas must not be driven into the ocean. France must be compelled to
give pledges for the performance of her treaty engagements or find
herself without a foothold in the country.
With the hour came the man. Under the direction of the greatest war
minister England had ever seen, or has since seen, William Pitt, the
"Great Commoner," war on France was begun in earnest.
At first a few successes were achieved by the French commanders. Fort
William Henry, with its small garrison, surrendered to Montcalm, and
Abercrombie's expedition to Fort Ticonderoga was a disastrous failure.
But the tide of battle soon turned.
The beginning of the end came in 1758. Louisbourg, the great fortress
which France had made "The Gibraltar of the West," became a prize to the
army and navy of Britain. New England soldiers formed a part of the
investing force on land, and their record in the second capture of
Louisbourg was something to be proud of. Fort Frontenac, on Lake
Ontario, was taken, together with armed vessels and a great collection
of stores and implements of war. Fort Duquesne, a strongly fortified
post of the French, whose site is now covered by the great manufacturing
city of Pittsburgh, surrendered to a British force. For many years after
it was known as Fort Pitt, so called in honor of the great minister
under whose compelling influence the war against France had become so
mighty a success.
In 1759, General Wolfe, who had been the leading spirit in the siege of
Louisbourg, was placed in command of an expedition for the capture of
Quebec. Next after Louisbourg, Quebec was by nature and military art the
strongest place in North America. The tragic story of the capture of
Quebec has been so often told that it is not necessary for us to repeat
it here.
Of the long, impatient watch by Wolfe, from the English fleet, for
opportunity to disembark his small army, drifting with the tides of the
St. Lawrence, passing and repassing the formidable citadel, the stealthy
midnight landing at the base of a mighty cliff, the hard climb of armed
men up the wooded height, and the assembly, in early morning mist, on
the Plains of Abraham, are not for us to write of here. In the glowing
pages of Parkman all this is so thrillingly described that we need not
say more of the most dramatic and most pathetic story in all American
history, than that Quebec fell, and with it, in short time, fell the
whole power of France in North America.
In the following year (September 8, 1760), Montreal, the last stronghold
of the French in Canada, capitulated to Sir Jeffrey Amherst, who had
ascended the St. Lawrence with a force of about 10,000 men, comprising
British regiments of the line artillery, rangers and provincial
regiments from New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. The provincial
contingent numbered above four thousand.
With the fall of Montreal the seven years' fight for supremacy was
ended.
Such a defeat to proud France was a bitter experience, and definite
settlement of the terms of peace, which Great Britain was able to
dictate, was not made until, on the 10th of February, 1763, the treaty
of Paris was signed.
By this treaty to Great Britain was ceded all Canada, Nova Scotia, Cape
Breton and the West India Islands of Dominica, St. Vincent, Tobago and
Grenada. Minorca was restored to Great Britain, and to her also was
given the French possession of Senegal in Western Africa. In India,
where the French had obtained considerable influence, France was bound
by this treaty to raise no fortifications and to keep no military force
in Bengal. To remove the annoyance which Florida had long been to the
contiguous English colonies, that province of Spain was transferred to
the English in exchange for Havana, which had been only recently wrested
from the occupation of Spain by the brilliant victory of Pocock and
Albamarle.
And so 1763 saw the British flag peacefully waving from the Gulf of
Mexico to the northern shores of Hudson's Bay. The coast of the Atlantic
was protected by the British navy, and the colonists had no longer
foreign enemies to fear.
For this relief the colonists gave warm thanks to the king and to
parliament. Massachusetts voted a costly monument in Westminster Abbey
in memory of Lord Howe, who had fallen in the campaign against Canada.
The assembly of the same colony, in a joyous address to the governor,
declared that without the assistance of the parent state the colonies
must have fallen a prey to the power of France, and that without money
sent from England the burden of the war would have been too great to
bear. In an address to the king they made the same acknowledgment, and
pledged themselves to demonstrate their gratitude by every possible
testimony of duty and loyalty. James Otis expressed the common sentiment
of the hour when, upon being chosen moderator of the first town meeting
held in Boston after the peace, he declared: "We in America have
certainly abundant reason to rejoice. Not only are the heathen driven
out, but the Canadians, much more formidable enemies, are conquered and
become fellow subjects. The British dominion and power can now be said
literally to extend from sea to sea and from the Great River to the ends
of the earth." And after praising the wise administration of His
Majesty, and lauding the British constitution to the skies, he went on
to say: "Those jealousies which some weak and wicked minds endeavored to
infuse with regard to these colonies, had their birth in the blackness
of darkness, and it is a great pity that they had not remained there
forever. The true interests of Great Britain and her plantation are
mutual, and what God in his providence has united, let no man dare
attempt to pull asunder."
In June, 1763, a confederation, including several Indian tribes,
suddenly and unexpectedly swept over the whole western frontier of
Pennsylvania and Virginia. They murdered almost all the English settlers
who were scattered beyond the mountains, surprised every British fort
between the Ohio and Lake Erie, and closely blockaded Forts Detroit and
Pitt. In no previous war had the Indians shown such skill, tenacity, and
concert, and had there not been British troops in the country the whole
of Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Maryland would have been overrun.
The war lasted fourteen months, and most of the hard fighting was done
by English troops, assisted by militia from some of the Southern
colonies. General Amherst called upon the New England colonies to help
their brethren, but his request was almost disregarded. Connecticut sent
250 men, but Massachusetts, being beyond the zone of immediate danger,
would give no assistance. After a war of extreme horror, peace was
signed September, 1764. In a large degree by the efforts of English
soldiers Indian territory was rolled back, and one more great service
was rendered by England to her colonies, and also the necessity was
shown for a standing army.[6]
[6] Trumbull's "His. of the U. S.," 445-467. Hildreth, Graham,
Hutchinson.
The "French and Indian War," as it was commonly called, waged with so
much energy and success, doubled the national debt of England and made
taxation oppressive in that country. The war had been waged mainly for
the benefit of the colonists, and as it was necessary to maintain a
standing army to protect the conquered territory, it was considered but
reasonable that part of the expense should be borne by the Americans.
This was especially so in view that the conquest of Canada had been a
prime object of statesmen and leading citizens of the colonies for many
years.
It has been said on good authority that Franklin brought about the
expedition against Canada that ended with Wolfe's victory on the Plains
of Abraham. In all companies and on all occasions he had urged conquest
of Canada as an object of the utmost importance. He said it would
inflict a blow upon the French power in America from which it would
never recover, and would have lasting influence in advancing the
prosperity of the British colonies. Franklin was one of the shrewdest
statesmen of the age. After egging England on to the capture of Canada
from the French, and then removing the most dreaded enemy of the
colonies, he won the confidence of the court and people of France, and
obtained their aid to deprive England of the best part of a continent.
He was genial, thrifty, and adroit, and his jocose wisdom was never more
tersely expressed than when he advised the signers of the Declaration of
Independence to "hang together or they would hang separately."
At the conclusion of the Peace of Paris in 1763, Great Britain had
ceased to be an insular kingdom, and had become a world-wide empire,
consisting of three grand divisions: the British Islands, India, and a
large part of North America. In Ireland an army of ten or twelve
thousand men were maintained by Irish resources, voted by an Irish
Parliament and available for the general defence of the empire. In India
a similar army was maintained by the despotic government of the East
India Company. English statesmen believed that each of these great parts
of the empire should contribute to the defence of the whole, and that
unless they should do so voluntarily it was their opinion, in which the
great lawyers of England agreed, that power to force contributions
resided in the Imperial Parliament at Westminster, and should be
exercised. It was thought that an army of ten thousand men was necessary
to protect the territory won from France and to keep the several tribes
of American Indians in subjection, especially as it was believed that
the French would endeavor to recapture Canada at the first opportunity.
Americans, it should be remembered, paid no part of the interest on the
national debt of England, amounting to one hundred and forty million
pounds, one-half of which had been contracted in the French and Indian
war. America paid nothing to support the navy that protected its coasts,
although the American colonies were the most prosperous and lightly
taxed portion of the British Empire. Grenville, Chancellor of the
Exchequer, asked the Americans to contribute one hundred thousand pounds
a year, about one-third of the expense of maintaining the proposed army,
and about one-third of one percent of the sum we now pay each year for
pensions. He promised distinctly that the army should never be required
to serve except in America and the West India islands, but he could not
persuade the colonists to agree among themselves on a practical plan for
raising the money, and so it was proposed to resort to taxation by act
of Parliament. At the time he made this proposal he assured the
Americans that the proceeds of the tax should be expended solely in
America, and that if they would raise the money among themselves in
their own way he would be satisfied. He gave them a year to consider the
proposition. At the end of the year they were as reluctant as ever to
tax themselves for their own defence or submit to taxation by act of
Parliament. Then the stamp act was passed--it was designed to raise one
hundred thousand pounds a year, and then the trouble began that led to
the dismemberment of the empire. Several acute observers had already
predicted that the triumph of England over France would be soon followed
by a revolt of the colonies. Kalm, the Swedish traveller, contended in
1748 that the presence of the French in Canada, by making the English
colonists depend for their security on the support of the mother
country, was the main cause of the submission of the colonies. A few
years later Argenson, who had left some of the most striking political
predictions upon record, foretold in his Memoirs that the English
colonies in America would one day rise against the mother country, that
they would form themselves into a republic and astonish the world by
their prosperity. The French ministers consoled themselves for the Peace
of Paris by the reflection that the loss of Canada was a sure prelude to
the independence of the colonies, and Vergennes, the sagacious French
ambassador at Constantinople, predicted to an English traveller, with
striking accuracy, the events that would occur. "England," he said,
"will soon repent having removed the only check that would keep her
colonies in awe. They stand no longer in need of her protection; she
will call upon them to contribute towards supporting the burden they
have helped to bring on her, and they will answer by striking off all
dependence."[7]
[7] Bancroft's His. of the U.S., Vol. I., 525.
It is not to be supposed that Englishmen were wholly blind to this
danger. One of the ablest advocates of the retention of Canada was Lord
Bath, who published a pamphlet on the subject, which had a very wide
influence and a large circulation.[8] There were, however, some
politicians who maintained that it would be wiser to restore Canada and
to retain Guadaloupe, St. Lucia, and Martinique. This view was supported
with distinguished talent in an anonymous reply to Lord Bath.
[8] "Letters to Two Great Men on the Prospect of Peace."
This writer argued "that we had no original right to Canada, and that
the acquisition of a vast, barren, and almost uninhabited country lying
in an inhospitable climate, and with no commerce except that of furs and
skins, was economically far less valuable to England than the
acquisition of Guadaloupe, which was one of the most important of the
sugar islands. The acquisition of these islands would give England the
control of the West Indies, and it was urged that an island colony is
more advantageous than a continental one, for it is necessarily more
dependent upon the mother country. In the New England provinces there
are already colleges and academies where the American youths can
receive their education. America produces or can easily produce almost
everything she wants. Her population and her wealth are rapidly
increasing, and as the colonies recede more and more from the sea, the
necessity of their connection with England will steadily diminish. They
will have nothing to expect, they must live wholly by their own labor,
and in process of time will know little, inquire little, and care
little, about the mother country. If the people of our colonies find no
check from Canada they will extend themselves almost without bounds into
inland parts. What the consequences will be to have a numerous, hardy,
independent people, possessed of a strong country, communicating little,
or not at all, with England, I leave to your own reflections. By eagerly
grasping at extensive territory we may run the risk, and that, perhaps,
in no distant period, of losing what we now possess. The possession of
Canada, far from being necessary to our safety, may in its consequences
be even dangerous. A neighbor that keeps us in some awe is not always
the worst of neighbors; there is a balance of power in America as well
as in Europe."[9]
[9] Remarks on the Letter Addressed to Two Great Men. Pp. 30-31.
These views are said to have been countenanced by Lord Hardwicke, but
the tide of opinion ran strongly in the opposite direction; the nations
had learned to look with pride and sympathy upon that greater England
which was growing up beyond the Atlantic, and there was a desire, which
was not ungenerous or ignoble, to remove at any risk the one obstacle to
its future happiness. These arguments were supported by Franklin, who in
a remarkable pamphlet sketched the great undeveloped capabilities of the
colonies, and ridiculed the "visionary fear" that they would ever
combine against England. "This jealousy of each other," he said, "is so
great that, however necessary a union of the colonies has long been for
their common defence and security against their enemies, yet they have
never been able to effect such a union among themselves. If they cannot
agree to unite for defence against the French and Indians, can it
reasonably be supposed there is any danger of their uniting against
their own nation, which protects and encourages them, with which they
have so many connections and ties of blood, interest, and affection, and
which it is well known, they all love _much more than they love one
another_."[10]
[10] Canada Pamphlet, Franklin's Works, IV., 41-42.
Within a few years after Franklin made this statement he did more than
any other man living to carry into effect the "visionary fear" which he
had ridiculed.
The denial that independence was the object sought for was constant and
general. To obtain concessions and to preserve connection with the
empire was affirmed everywhere. John Adams, the successor of Washington
to the presidency, years after the peace of 1783 went farther than this,
for he said, "There was not a moment during the Revolution when I would
not have given everything I possessed for a restoration to the state of
things before the contest began, provided we could have had a sufficient
security for its continuance."
In the summer of 1774, Franklin assured Chatham that there was no desire
among the colonists for independence. He said: "Having more than once
travelled almost from one end of the continent to the other, and kept a
variety of company, eating and conversing with them freely, I have never
heard in any conversation from any person, drunk or sober, the least
wish for a separation or a hint that such a thing would be advantageous
to America."
Mr. Jay is quite as explicit: "During the course of my life," said he,
"and until the second petition of Congress in 1775, I never did hear an
American of any class or of any description express a wish for the
independence of the colonies."
Mr. Jefferson affirmed: "What eastward of New York might have been the
disposition towards England before the commencement of hostilities I
know not, but before that I never heard a whisper of a disposition to
separate from Great Britain, and after that its possibility was
contemplated with affliction by all."
Washington in 1774 fully sustains their declarations, and in the
"Fairfax County Resolves" it was complained that "malevolent falsehoods"
were propagated by the ministry to prejudice the mind of the king,
particularly that there is an intention in the American colonies to set
up for independent state.
Mr. Madison says: "It has always been my impression that a
re-establishment of the colonial relations to the mother country, as
they were previous to the controversy, was the real object of every
class of the people till they despaired of obtaining redress for their
grievances."
This feeling among the revolutionists is corroborated by DuPortail, a
secret agent of the French government. In a letter dated 1778 he says:
"There is a hundred times more enthusiasm for the revolution in a
coffee-house at Paris than in all the colonies united. This people,
though at war with the English, hate the French more than they hate
them; we prove this every day, and notwithstanding everything that
France has done or can do for them, they will prefer a reconciliation
with their ancient brethren. If they must needs be dependent, they had
rather be so on England."
Again, as late as March, 1775, only a month before the outbreak of
hostilities at Lexington, John Adams wrote: "That there are any that
hunt after independence is the greatest slander on the Province."
This feeling must have arisen from gratitude for the protection afforded
by the mother country, or at least satisfaction with the relations then
existing. It is true, as has been shown in a previous chapter, that for
some years before the English Revolution, and for some years after the
accession of William and Mary, the relations of the colonies to England
had been extremely tense, but in the long period of unbroken Whig rule
which followed, most of the elements of discontent had subsided. The
wise neglect of Walpole and Newcastle was eminently conducive to
colonial interests. The substitution in several colonies of royal for
proprietary government was very popular. There were slight differences
in the colonial forms of government, but everywhere the colonists paid
their governor and their other officials. In nearly every respect they
governed themselves, under the shadow of British dominion, with a
liberty not equalled in any other portion of the civilized globe; real
constitutional liberty was flourishing in the English colonies when all
European countries and their colonies were despotically governed. The
circumstances and traditions of the colonists had made them extremely
impatient of every kind of authority, but there is no reason for
doubting that they were animated by a real attachment to England. Their
commercial intercourse, under the restructions of the navigation laws,
was mainly with her. Their institutions, their culture, their religion,
their ideas were derived from English sources. They had a direct
interest in the English war against France and Spain. They were proud of
their English lineage, of English growth in greatness, and of English
liberty. On this point there is a striking answer made by Franklin in
his crafty examinations before the House of Commons in February, 1766.
In reply to the question, "What was the temper of America towards Great
Britain before the year 1763?" he said, "The best in the world. They
submitted willingly to the government of the crown, and paid their
courts obedience to the Acts of Parliament. Numerous as the people are
in the several old provinces, they cost you nothing in forts, citadels,
garrisons, or armies to keep them in subjection, they were governed by
this country at the expense only of a little pen, ink, and paper; they
were led by a thread. They had not only a respect, but an affection for
Great Britain, for its laws, its customs, and manners, and even a
fondness for its fashions that greatly increased the commerce. Natives
of Britain were always treated with particular regard; to be an 'Old
England' man was of itself a character of some respect and gave a kind
of rank among us." In reply to the question, "What is their temper now?"
he said, "Very much altered." It is interesting to inquire what happened
during the three years intervening to change the temper of the
colonists.