At the era of the Revolution, thirteen colonies had been planted.
These were Virginia, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode
Island, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, North
and South Carolina, and Georgia. Virginia, the first, was settled in
1607, and Georgia, the last, in 1732. Different objects were proposed
in the establishment of the different colonies. The leading object of
some was pecuniary profit. They were induced, either by associated or
individual proprietors, who themselves remained in England, to come to
America, with the hope of profitable returns for the advance of their
capital. But the more northern colonies came on their own concern, at
their own expense, and with reference to the enjoyment of freedom and
peace in religion, which they could not find at home.
Now, was it to be expected that those who had left home, and all its
endearments, for the sake of enjoying a larger liberty, would consent
to have that liberty abridged, especially after having tasted its
blessings for years? If the Pilgrim Fathers had such notions themselves,
was it to be supposed that their children would cherish less manly and
patriotic sentiments? The spirit of liberty does not easily die, where
there is aliment to keep it alive. The blood of freemen, or those who
aspire to freedom, instead of becoming weaker, as it flows down in
successive generations, usually becomes more pure and more excitable.
This was verified in the history of the colonies, anterior to the
Revolution. They were men of whom the principles of liberty had taken
strong hold. Their distance from the mother-country--her neglect of
them--the exercise of civil and religious freedom for a number of
years--all served to excite and strengthen a desire for independence.
Such an event was the natural result of the principles with which the
colonies began their career. It was the natural result of the physical
courage and strength acquired in felling forests, resisting savages, and
in carrying out those plans and enterprises in which a young, ardent,
and ambitious people are likely to engage.
2. Their forms of government were conducive to independence.
In the settlement of the colonies, three forms of government were
established. These were usually denominated Charter, Proprietary, and
Royal governments. The difference arose from the different
circumstances under which the colonies were settled, as well as the
different objects of the first emigrants. The Charter governments were
confined to New England. The Proprietary governments were those of
Maryland, Pennsylvania, the Carolinas, and the Jerseys. The others
were royal governments, or those which were immediately under the
British crown.[28]
As early as 1619, only twelve years from its settlement, a provincial
legislature, in which the colonists were represented, was introduced
into Virginia. In Plymouth and in Massachusetts, the colonies
organized their body, politic and social, upon principles of perfect
equality. And, as the Puritans spread themselves over New England,
they gave to the distinct communities which they established,
constitutions still more democratic. In January, 1639, three years
from the commencement of the Connecticut colony, the planters on
Connecticut river convened at Hartford, and formed a system of
government which continued, with scarcely any alterations, to the year
1818. Of this system, Dr. Trumbull observes: "With such wisdom did our
venerable ancestors provide for the freedom and liberties of
themselves and their posterity. Thus happily did they guard against
every encroachment on the rights of the subject. This, probably, is
one of the most free and happy constitutions of civil government ever
formed. The formation of it, at so early a period, when the light of
liberty was wholly darkened in most parts of the world, and the rights
of man were so little understood in others, does great honor to their
ability, integrity, and love of freedom."
In Maryland and Pennsylvania, the first assemblies established a
popular representation, and in all their political regulations
proceeded upon broad views of civil freedom. The same remark, says Mr.
Walsh, may be extended to the Carolinas and New York.
The very first principles, then, of the colonists in relation to
government were anti-monarchical. In their incipient colonial state,
they had the feelings of freemen; and all their institutions, as far
as they were allowed to carry them, spoke of liberty and equality.
This spirit was never lost to the colonies. In the variety of fortune
which they subsequently encountered--in every change of monarch
abroad--in every shift of rulers at home--through royal smiles and
royal frowns--in times of war and in times of peace--their love of
liberty continued unabated, and even increased. Thus early began
those sentiments of freedom and independence which, uniting in their
course with other streams, ended at length in a deep, broad,
irresistible current against British oppression.
3. Influence of the expenses incurred by the colonies in their
settlements, and in their several wars and those of the mother-country.
"All the thirteen colonies," says Mr. Walsh, "with the exception of
Georgia, were established, and had attained to considerable strength,
without the _slightest aid_ from the treasury of the mother-country."
Neither the crown nor the parliament paid a dollar towards purchasing
the soil of the Indians--the original masters of that soil. These
purchases were made by the colonists themselves. The settlement of the
province of Massachusetts Bay alone cost two hundred thousand pounds--an
enormous sum at the era at which it was effected. Lord Baltimore
expended forty thousand pounds in his establishment of the colony of
Maryland. On that of Virginia, immense wealth was lavished by the first
settlers. The first planters of Connecticut consumed great estates in
purchasing lands of the Indians and in making settlements.
In like manner, when assailed by fierce and warlike tribes, the
mother-country furnished no aid whatever--neither troops nor money.
She erected no fortifications; entered into no negotiations, and
manifested no sympathy, or even interest, in the fate of her
offspring. Some of the most considerable Indian wars in which the
colonies were involved, were the immediate result of the rashness and
cupidity of the royal governors. That, for instance, which is styled
'King William's War'--memorable in the annals of New Hampshire
particularly--was owing to a wanton predatory expedition of Andros, in
1688, against the possessions of a French individual, situate between
Penobscot and Nova Scotia.
The testimony of Lord Brougham on this subject is worthy of special
notice. In his work on 'Colonial Policy,' he observes:
"The old colonies of North America, besides defraying the whole
expenses of their internal administration, were enabled from their
situation to render very active assistance to the mother-country upon
several occasions, not peculiarly interesting to themselves. They
uniformly asserted, that they _would_ never refuse contributions, even
for purposes strictly imperial, provided these were constitutionally
demanded. Nor did they stop at mere professions of zeal.
"The whole expense of civil government in the British North American
colonies, previous to the Revolution, did not amount to eighty
thousand pounds sterling, which was paid by the produce of their
taxes. The military establishments, the garrisons and the forts in the
old colonies, cost the mother-country nothing."
From the foregoing facts, nothing is clearer than that the colonies were
obliged, from their earliest existence, to take care of themselves. At
first, Great Britain thought little of them, and cared, if possible,
still less. They were obliged to repel hostile tribes without aid, and
defend themselves against the aggressions of more civilized powers. And,
moreover, they were compelled to carry on not only their own wars, but
those of the mother-country, and then pay the expenses.
It may well be asked, what was the natural and almost necessary
consequence of such treatment? Keep a child in leading-strings, and it
will be long ere it walks. Teach him to walk early, and he will soon
decline your aid. Let a father send forth his son to take care of
himself, and perchance the next he hears of him, he will learn that
his fortune is made, and no longer will he wish for parental
assistance; and fortunate will it be if the son, under a sense of
former parental indifference and unkindness, does not, at length, feel
a correspondent alienation from the parent.
But whether these illustrations are apposite or not, certain it is,
that the colonists at length learned the important fact, that they
could take care of themselves. To this they had been driven. The next
natural feeling to this superiority over the difficulties and trials
which they encountered in their early settlement of the country, was a
willingness, and even _wish_, to be independent of the parent by whom
they had been so unkindly neglected. Great Britain might, therefore,
thank herself for the spirit of independence which at length appeared
among the colonies; her line of policy engendered and matured it.
4. Measures of oppression.
"Within little more than a generation from the commencement of the
plantations," says Mr. Walsh, "the royal government began those formal
inquiries into their population and manufactures, which were so often
renewed, until the period of our revolution." The object or occasion
of these inquiries was twofold--a jealousy, lest the colonies should
grow too fast; and, secondly, a desire to monopolize, for the benefit
of Great Britain, all their trade, and the proceeds of their
manufacturing industry.
The various acts of monopoly which passed parliament during a series of
years, it is not necessary to particularize. They uniformly bore heavily
on the commercial and manufacturing enterprise of the colonies, and were
designed "to keep them in a firmer dependence upon England"--"to render
them more beneficial and advantageous"--"to employ and increase the
English shipping"--"to make a vent for English manufactures."
After the peace of 1763, a still more grinding policy was proposed--that
of _taxing_ the colonies, with the avowed purpose of drawing a revenue
into the royal exchequer, and on the plausible, yet unwarrantable
ground, that Great Britain had contracted a debt in their defence.
Hitherto, when money was wanted in the colonies, the parliament of
England had been content to ask for it by a formal requisition upon
the _colonial legislatures_, and they had supplied it with a willing
hand. But now, it was thought that a shorter method of obtaining it
might be resorted to with better effect.
Before proceeding to notice the measures adopted with reference to the
foregoing object, it is necessary to advert to what were denominated
_writs of assistance_, which were orders issued by the superior court
of the province, requiring the sheriffs and other civil officers to
assist the person to whom it was granted, in breaking open and
searching every place, even private dwellings, if suspected of
containing prohibited goods.
The first application for a writ of this kind was made by the deputy
collector at Salem in November, 1760. Doubts being expressed by the
court as to the legality of the writ, or the power of the court to
grant it, the application was deferred to the next term, when the
question was to be argued.
At the appointed time, Mr. Gridley, a distinguished lawyer, appeared
for the crown; Mr. Thatcher and Mr. Otis for the merchants. The trial
took place in the council chamber of the old Town-house in Boston. The
judges were five in number, including Lieutenant-Governor Hutchinson,
who presided as chief justice; and the room was filled with all the
officers of government and the principal citizens, to hear the
arguments in a cause that inspired the deepest solicitude. The case
was opened by Mr. Gridley, who argued it with much learning,
ingenuity, and dignity; making all his reason depend upon this
consideration, "That the parliament of Great Britain was the sovereign
legislator of the British empire." He was followed by Mr. Thatcher on
the opposite side, whose reasoning was ingenious and able, delivered
in a tone of great mildness and moderation. "But," in the language of
President Adams, "Otis was a flame of fire; with a promptitude of
classical allusion, a depth of research, a rapid summary of historical
events and dates, a profusion of legal authorities, a prophetic glance
into futurity, and a rapid torrent of impetuous eloquence, he hurried
away all before him."
"I will to my dying day," said Otis, among other things--"I will to my
dying day oppose, with all the power and faculties God has given me,
all such instruments of slavery on the one hand and villany on the
other. It appears to me the worst instrument of arbitrary power, the
most destructive of English liberty, and the fundamental principles of
law, that was ever found in an English law-book."
[Illustration: Otis in the Council chamber.]
The occasion was intensely exciting--the liberties of the people were in
danger--their dwellings, those sanctuaries where every man should feel
himself safe, and his effects--all were in jeopardy. And the vast throng
gathered on the occasion so thought--especially as their excited
feelings became more intense under the thrilling appeals of the eloquent
Otis. "Every man of an immensely crowded audience," says President
Adams, "appeared to me to go away, as I did, ready to take arms against
writs of assistance. _Then and there was the first scene of the first
act of opposition to the arbitrary claims of Great Britain._"
The court postponed a decision of the question until the following term;
and in the mean time wrote to Great Britain for information on the
subject. Writs were afterwards granted, but were extremely unpopular. In
Connecticut writs of assistance, it is said, were never granted.
The next measure of oppression was the passage of the famous _stamp
act_. Such a project had been suggested during the administrations of
Lord Walpole and Mr. Pitt; but they were too sagacious to venture upon
a measure at once so odious and unjust. Said Walpole, "I will leave
the taxation of America to some of my successors, who may have more
_courage_ than I have." And said Pitt, "I will never burn my fingers
with an American stamp act." To the successor of Mr. Pitt, Lord
Grenville, was reserved the honor, or rather the infamy, of such a
project.
When the bill was ushered into the House of Commons, petitions from
Virginia, Connecticut, and South Carolina, in every way respectful,
but in tone firm and decided, were offered in opposition to it. But
the house refused even to receive them, on the ground that the _right_
of parliament to tax the colonies was denied; and, secondly, that it
was contrary to a rule of the house "_to receive any petition against
a money-bill_."
The debate therefore proceeded. The chief advocates of the bill were
the prime minister and Charles Townshend. In the opposition were Mr.
Pitt--who, however, was absent by reason of sickness--General Conway,
Alderman Beckford, Colonel Barre, Mr. Jackson, Sir William Meredith,
&c. Conway and Beckford opposed the bill on the ground of its
_injustice_; Colonel Barre and others on the ground of its
_inexpediency_. The purpose of the minister, however, was fixed; and,
rallying his surprised and half-hesitating troops, he took the
question--a large majority expressed in favor of the bill--two hundred
and fifty for, and fifty against it. On its coming into the House of
Lords, it received the entire concurrence of that body, and on the 22d
of March obtained the royal assent.
This act, so celebrated in the annals of American history, both as an
act of flagrant injustice, on the part of the British parliament, and
one of the _proximate causes_ of the Revolution, consisted of fifty-five
specific duties, laid on as many different species of instruments, in
which paper was used; such as notes, bonds, mortgages, deeds, university
degrees, licenses, advertisements in newspapers, and even almanacs;
varying from _one half-penny_ up to _six pounds_. As an illustration of
the heavy burdens designed to be put upon the colonies by this act, it
may be stated, that previous to the passage of the act, a ream of common
printed bailbonds cost fifteen pounds--_stamped_, one hundred. A ream of
_stamped_ policies of insurance amounted to one hundred and ninety
pounds--of common ones, without stamps, twenty. A piece of paper, or
parchment, used as a diploma, or certificate of a degree taken in any
university, academy, or college, was taxed _two pounds_. For a piece of
paper for a license for retailing spirituous liquors, _twenty shillings_
were demanded. For one for a license for selling wine only, _four
pounds_; for wine and spirituous liquors, _three pounds_. For letters of
probate, administration, or guardianship, _ten shillings_. For a common
deed, conveying not exceeding one hundred acres of land, _one shilling
and sixpence_. For a newspaper, containing half a sheet or less, _one
half-penny_; one sheet, _one penny_. Pamphlets, _one shilling_ per
sheet. Advertisements, _two shillings_ each. Almanacs, _fourpence_.
This act was ordered to take effect on the following 1st of November.
Meanwhile, the people in various parts of the country were anxious to
express their detestation of the measure, which the lapse of a few
months was to bring into operation. One day in the month of August, the
effigy of Andrew Oliver, the proposed distributor of stamps in
Massachusetts, was found hanging on a tree, afterwards well known by the
name of _Liberty-tree_, in the main street of Boston. At night it was
taken down, and carried on a bier amidst the acclamations of an immense
collection of people through the court-house, down King street, to a
small brick building, supposed to have been erected for the reception of
the detested stamps. This building being soon levelled with the ground,
the rioters next attacked Mr. Oliver's house; and having broken the
windows, entered it, and destroyed part of the furniture.
[Illustration: Procession with an Effigy and Stamp-master at Boston.]
The house of Benjamin Hallowell, jun., comptroller of the customs, was
next entered; and, elevated and emboldened by liquors found in his
cellar, the mob, with inflamed rage, directed their course to the
house of Lieutenant-Governor Hutchinson, who, after vainly attempting
resistance, was constrained to depart, to save his life. By four in
the morning, one of the best houses in the province was completely in
ruins, nothing remaining but the bare walls and floors. The plate,
family pictures, most of the furniture, the wearing apparel, about
nine hundred pounds sterling, and the manuscripts and books which Mr.
Hutchinson had been thirty years collecting, besides many public
papers in his custody, were either carried off or destroyed. The whole
damage was estimated at two thousand five hundred pounds.
[Illustration: Attack, on the Governor's House.]
On the arrival of the 1st of November, on which the stamp act was to
go into effect, the day was ushered in at Boston by the tolling of the
bells; many shops and stores were shut, and effigies of the authors
and friends of that act were carried about the streets, and afterwards
torn in pieces by the populace.
Nor was Massachusetts alone; the obnoxious act received similar
treatment in the other colonies. On the 24th of August, a gazette was
published at Providence, with _vox Populi, vox Dei_, for a motto;
effigies were exhibited, and in the evening cut down and burned. In
Portsmouth, New Castle, and other places, the bells were tolled to
denote the decease of Liberty. In Connecticut, Mr. Ingersoll, the
stamp-master, was compelled to resign. The spirit manifested in New
York produced a similar resignation. Offended with the conduct of
Lieutenant-Governor Colden, in relation to the stamp act, many of the
inhabitants assembled one evening, and breaking open his coach-house,
took out his coach, which, with his effigy, they burned, amid the
acclamations of several thousand spectators.
[Illustration: Burning of the Coach and Effigy of Governor Colden.]
In Philadelphia, on the appearance of the ships having the stamps on
board, all the ships in the harbor hoisted their colors half-mast high;
the bells were muffled, and continued to toll till evening. Similar
demonstrations of dissatisfaction were made in numerous other places.
The opposition to the stamp act was so universal and so formidable, as
to prevent all hope of its successful operation; had this measure been
persisted in, the Revolution in America would doubtless have dated at
an earlier day.
Fortunately for the American colonies, the administration of Lord
Grenville terminated in July, 1765--that minister being succeeded by
the Marquis of Rockingham, while the Duke of Grafton and General
Conway were made secretaries of state.
To this new ministry it early became apparent that, in respect to the
colonies, a crisis was now at hand; either existing measures must be
relaxed, or a resort must be had to arms. The former being deemed the
wiser plan, a repeal of the stamp act was moved in parliament, and, on
the 18th of March, passed the House by a majority of two hundred and
seventy-five to one hundred and sixty-seven. In the House of Lords,
the majority was one hundred and five to seventy-one.
In America, the intelligence of the repeal was received with
acclamations of the most sincere and heart-felt gratitude, by all
classes of people. Public thanksgivings were offered up in all the
churches. The resolutions, which had been passed on the subject of
importations, were rescinded, and their trade with the mother-country
was immediately renewed with increased vigor. The home-spun dresses
were given to the poor, and once more the colonists appeared clad in
the produce of British looms.
In July, 1766, the Marquis of Rockingham retired from the cabinet, and
a new ministry was formed under the direction of William Pitt--the
Duke of Grafton being placed at the head of the treasury, and Charles
Townshend made chancellor of the exchequer. In May, 1767, the latter
revived the scheme of taxing America, proposing to impose duties on
glass, paper, tea, &c., imported into the colonies. The bill passed
both houses without much opposition, the Earl of Chatham being
confined at that time by sickness.
The news of this measure, on reaching America, produced the greatest
possible excitement. Counter-measures were immediately proposed.
Resort was had, as at a former day, to non-importation, the effects of
which had been so severely felt by the traders in England, under the
stamp act. Boston, as before, took the lead. At a town-meeting, held
in October, it was voted that measures should be immediately taken to
promote the establishment of domestic manufactories, by encouraging
the consumption of all articles of American manufacture. They also
agreed to purchase no articles of foreign growth or manufacture, but
such as were absolutely indispensable. New York and Philadelphia soon
followed the example of Boston; and, in a short time, the merchants
themselves entered into associations to import nothing from Great
Britain but articles that necessity required.
Several events, about this time, served to increase the excitement of
the colonies, especially in Boston. Among these may be mentioned the
arrival, at the latter place, of a man-of-war and transports, from
Halifax, with nine hundred troops on board.
[Illustration: Arrival of the first Man-of-war at Boston.]