Free Ebooks - HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES

HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES

BY

CHARLES A. BEARD

AND

MARY R. BEARD

New York

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY

1921

_All rights reserved_

COPYRIGHT, 1921,

BY THE MACMILLAN COMPANY.

Set up and electrotyped. Published March, 1921.

Norwood Press

J.S. Cushing Co.--Berwick & Smith Co.

NORWOOD, MASS., U.S.A.

PREFACE

As things now stand, the course of instruction in American history in
our public schools embraces three distinct treatments of the subject.
Three separate books are used. First, there is the primary book, which
is usually a very condensed narrative with emphasis on biographies and
anecdotes. Second, there is the advanced text for the seventh or eighth
grade, generally speaking, an expansion of the elementary book by the
addition of forty or fifty thousand words. Finally, there is the high
school manual. This, too, ordinarily follows the beaten path, giving
fuller accounts of the same events and characters. To put it bluntly, we
do not assume that our children obtain permanent possessions from their
study of history in the lower grades. If mathematicians followed the
same method, high school texts on algebra and geometry would include the
multiplication table and fractions.

There is, of course, a ready answer to the criticism advanced above. It
is that teachers have learned from bitter experience how little history
their pupils retain as they pass along the regular route. No teacher of
history will deny this. Still it is a standing challenge to existing
methods of historical instruction. If the study of history cannot be
made truly progressive like the study of mathematics, science, and
languages, then the historians assume a grave responsibility in adding
their subject to the already overloaded curriculum. If the successive
historical texts are only enlarged editions of the first text--more
facts, more dates, more words--then history deserves most of the sharp
criticism which it is receiving from teachers of science, civics, and
economics.

In this condition of affairs we find our justification for offering a
new high school text in American history. Our first contribution is one
of omission. The time-honored stories of exploration and the
biographies of heroes are left out. We frankly hold that, if pupils know
little or nothing about Columbus, Cortes, Magellan, or Captain John
Smith by the time they reach the high school, it is useless to tell the
same stories for perhaps the fourth time. It is worse than useless. It
is an offense against the teachers of those subjects that are
demonstrated to be progressive in character.

In the next place we have omitted all descriptions of battles. Our
reasons for this are simple. The strategy of a campaign or of a single
battle is a highly technical, and usually a highly controversial, matter
about which experts differ widely. In the field of military and naval
operations most writers and teachers of history are mere novices. To
dispose of Gettysburg or the Wilderness in ten lines or ten pages is
equally absurd to the serious student of military affairs. Any one who
compares the ordinary textbook account of a single Civil War campaign
with the account given by Ropes, for instance, will ask for no further
comment. No youth called upon to serve our country in arms would think
of turning to a high school manual for information about the art of
warfare. The dramatic scene or episode, so useful in arousing the
interest of the immature pupil, seems out of place in a book that
deliberately appeals to boys and girls on the very threshold of life's
serious responsibilities.

It is not upon negative features, however, that we rest our case. It is
rather upon constructive features.

_First._ We have written a topical, not a narrative, history. We have
tried to set forth the important aspects, problems, and movements of
each period, bringing in the narrative rather by way of illustration.

_Second._ We have emphasized those historical topics which help to
explain how our nation has come to be what it is to-day.

_Third._ We have dwelt fully upon the social and economic aspects of our
history, especially in relation to the politics of each period.

_Fourth._ We have treated the causes and results of wars, the problems
of financing and sustaining armed forces, rather than military strategy.
These are the subjects which belong to a history for civilians. These
are matters which civilians can understand--matters which they must
understand, if they are to play well their part in war and peace.

_Fifth._ By omitting the period of exploration, we have been able to
enlarge the treatment of our own time. We have given special attention
to the history of those current questions which must form the subject
matter of sound instruction in citizenship.

_Sixth._ We have borne in mind that America, with all her unique
characteristics, is a part of a general civilization. Accordingly we
have given diplomacy, foreign affairs, world relations, and the
reciprocal influences of nations their appropriate place.

_Seventh._ We have deliberately aimed at standards of maturity. The
study of a mere narrative calls mainly for the use of the memory. We
have aimed to stimulate habits of analysis, comparison, association,
reflection, and generalization--habits calculated to enlarge as well as
inform the mind. We have been at great pains to make our text clear,
simple, and direct; but we have earnestly sought to stretch the
intellects of our readers--to put them upon their mettle. Most of them
will receive the last of their formal instruction in the high school.
The world will soon expect maturity from them. Their achievements will
depend upon the possession of other powers than memory alone. The
effectiveness of their citizenship in our republic will be measured by
the excellence of their judgment as well as the fullness of their
information.

C.A.B.
M.R.B.

NEW YORK CITY,
February 8, 1921.

=A SMALL LIBRARY IN AMERICAN HISTORY=

_=SINGLE VOLUMES:=_

BASSETT, J.S. _A Short History of the United States_
ELSON, H.W. _History of the United States of America_

_=SERIES:=_

"EPOCHS OF AMERICAN HISTORY," EDITED BY A.B. HART

HART, A.B. _Formation of the Union_
THWAITES, R.G. _The Colonies_
WILSON, WOODROW. _Division and Reunion_

"RIVERSIDE SERIES," EDITED BY W.E. DODD

BECKER, C.L. _Beginnings of the American People_
DODD, W.E. _Expansion and Conflict_
JOHNSON, A. _Union and Democracy_
PAXSON, F.L. _The New Nation_

CONTENTS

PART I. THE COLONIAL PERIOD

CHAPTER PAGE
I. THE GREAT MIGRATION TO AMERICA 1
The Agencies of American Colonization 2
The Colonial Peoples 6
The Process of Colonization 12

II. COLONIAL AGRICULTURE, INDUSTRY, AND COMMERCE 20
The Land and the Westward Movement 20
Industrial and Commercial Development 28

III. SOCIAL AND POLITICAL PROGRESS 38
The Leadership of the Churches 39
Schools and Colleges 43
The Colonial Press 46
The Evolution in Political Institutions 48

IV. THE DEVELOPMENT OF COLONIAL NATIONALISM 56
Relations with the Indians and the French 57
The Effects of Warfare on the Colonies 61
Colonial Relations with the British Government 64
Summary of Colonial Period 73

PART II. CONFLICT AND INDEPENDENCE

V. THE NEW COURSE IN BRITISH IMPERIAL POLICY 77
George III and His System 77
George III's Ministers and Their Colonial Policies 79
Colonial Resistance Forces Repeal 83
Resumption of British Revenue and Commercial Policies 87
Renewed Resistance in America 90
Retaliation by the British Government 93
From Reform to Revolution in America 95

VI. THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 99
Resistance and Retaliation 99
American Independence 101
The Establishment of Government and the New Allegiance 108
Military Affairs 116
The Finances of the Revolution 125
The Diplomacy of the Revolution 127
Peace at Last 132
Summary of the Revolutionary Period 135

PART III. FOUNDATIONS OF THE UNION AND NATIONAL POLITICS

VII. THE FORMATION OF THE CONSTITUTION 139
The Promise and the Difficulties of America 139
The Calling of a Constitutional Convention 143
The Framing of the Constitution 146
The Struggle over Ratification 157

VIII. THE CLASH OF POLITICAL PARTIES 162
The Men and Measures of the New Government 162
The Rise of Political Parties 168
Foreign Influences and Domestic Politics 171

IX. THE JEFFERSONIAN REPUBLICANS IN POWER 186
Republican Principles and Policies 186
The Republicans and the Great West 188
The Republican War for Commercial Independence 193
The Republicans Nationalized 201
The National Decisions of Chief Justice Marshall 208
Summary of Union and National Politics 212

PART IV. THE WEST AND JACKSONIAN DEMOCRACY

X. THE FARMERS BEYOND THE APPALACHIANS 217
Preparation for Western Settlement 217
The Western Migration and New States 221
The Spirit of the Frontier 228
The West and the East Meet 230

XI. JACKSONIAN DEMOCRACY 238
The Democratic Movement in the East 238
The New Democracy Enters the Arena 244
The New Democracy at Washington 250
The Rise of the Whigs 260
The Interaction of American and European Opinion 265

XII. THE MIDDLE BORDER AND THE GREAT WEST 271
The Advance of the Middle Border 271
On to the Pacific--Texas and the Mexican War 276
The Pacific Coast and Utah 284
Summary of Western Development and National Politics 292

PART V. SECTIONAL CONFLICT AND RECONSTRUCTION

XIII. THE RISE OF THE INDUSTRIAL SYSTEM 295
The Industrial Revolution 296
The Industrial Revolution and National Politics 307

XIV. THE PLANTING SYSTEM AND NATIONAL POLITICS 316
Slavery--North and South 316
Slavery in National Politics 324
The Drift of Events toward the Irrepressible Conflict 332

XV. THE CIVIL WAR AND RECONSTRUCTION 344
The Southern Confederacy 344
The War Measures of the Federal Government 350
The Results of the Civil War 365
Reconstruction in the South 370
Summary of the Sectional Conflict 375

PART VI. NATIONAL GROWTH AND WORLD POLITICS

XVI. THE POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC EVOLUTION OF THE SOUTH 379
The South at the Close of the War 379
The Restoration of White Supremacy 382
The Economic Advance of the South 389

XVII. BUSINESS ENTERPRISE AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY 401
Railways and Industry 401
The Supremacy of the Republican Party (1861-1885) 412
The Growth of Opposition to Republican Rule 417

XVIII. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE GREAT WEST 425
The Railways as Trail Blazers 425
The Evolution of Grazing and Agriculture 431
Mining and Manufacturing in the West 436
The Admission of New States 440
The Influence of the Far West on National Life 443

XIX. DOMESTIC ISSUES BEFORE THE COUNTRY (1865-1897) 451
The Currency Question 452
The Protective Tariff and Taxation 459
The Railways and Trusts 460
The Minor Parties and Unrest 462
The Sound Money Battle of 1896 466
Republican Measures and Results 472

XX. AMERICA A WORLD POWER (1865-1900) 477
American Foreign Relations (1865-1898) 478
Cuba and the Spanish War 485
American Policies in the Philippines and the Orient 497
Summary of National Growth and World Politics 504

PART VII. PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRACY AND THE WORLD WAR

XXI. THE EVOLUTION OF REPUBLICAN POLICIES (1901-1913) 507
Foreign Affairs 508
Colonial Administration 515
The Roosevelt Domestic Policies 519
Legislative and Executive Activities 523
The Administration of President Taft 527
Progressive Insurgency and the Election of 1912 530

XXII. THE SPIRIT OF REFORM IN AMERICA 536
An Age of Criticism 536
Political Reforms 538
Measures of Economic Reform 546

XXIII. THE NEW POLITICAL DEMOCRACY 554
The Rise of the Woman Movement 555
The National Struggle for Woman Suffrage 562

XXIV. INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY 570
Cooeperation between Employers and Employees 571
The Rise and Growth of Organized Labor 575
The Wider Relations of Organized Labor 577
Immigration and Americanization 582

XXV. PRESIDENT WILSON AND THE WORLD WAR 588
Domestic Legislation 588
Colonial and Foreign Policies 592
The United States and the European War 596
The United States at War 604
The Settlement at Paris 612
Summary of Democracy and the World War 620

APPENDIX 627

A TOPICAL SYLLABUS 645

INDEX 655

MAPS

PAGE
The Original Grants (color map) _Facing_ 4

German and Scotch-Irish Settlements 8

Distribution of Population in 1790 27

English, French, and Spanish Possessions in America, 1750
(color map) _Facing_ 59

The Colonies at the Time of the Declaration of Independence
(color map) _Facing_ 108

North America according to the Treaty of 1783
(color map) _Facing_ 134

The United States in 1805 (color map) _Facing_ 193

Roads and Trails into Western Territory (color map) _Facing_ 224

The Cumberland Road 233

Distribution of Population in 1830 235

Texas and the Territory in Dispute 282

The Oregon Country and the Disputed Boundary 285

The Overland Trails 287

Distribution of Slaves in Southern States 323

The Missouri Compromise 326

Slave and Free Soil on the Eve of the Civil War 335

The United States in 1861 (color map) _Facing_ 345

Railroads of the United States in 1918 405

The United States in 1870 (color map) _Facing_ 427

The United States in 1912 (color map) _Facing_ 443

American Dominions in the Pacific (color map) _Facing_ 500

The Caribbean Region (color map) _Facing_ 592

Battle Lines of the Various Years of the World War 613

Europe in 1919 (color map) _Between_ 618-619

"THE NATIONS OF THE WEST" (popularly called "The
Pioneers"), designed by A. Stirling Calder and modeled by
Mr. Calder, F.G.R. Roth, and Leo Lentelli, topped the Arch
of the Setting Sun at the Panama-Pacific Exposition held at
San Francisco in 1915. Facing the Court of the Universe
moves a group of men and women typical of those who have
made our civilization. From left to right appear the
French-Canadian, the Alaskan, the Latin-American, the
German, the Italian, the Anglo-American, and the American
Indian, squaw and warrior. In the place of honor in the
center of the group, standing between the oxen on the tongue
of the prairie schooner, is a figure, beautiful and almost
girlish, but strong, dignified, and womanly, the Mother of
To-morrow. Above the group rides the Spirit of Enterprise,
flanked right and left by the Hopes of the Future in the
person of two boys. The group as a whole is beautifully
symbolic of the westward march of American civilization.

[Illustration: _Photograph by Cardinell-Vincent Co., San Francisco_

"THE NATIONS OF THE WEST"]

HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES

PART I. THE COLONIAL PERIOD

CHAPTER I

THE GREAT MIGRATION TO AMERICA

The tide of migration that set in toward the shores of North America
during the early years of the seventeenth century was but one phase in
the restless and eternal movement of mankind upon the surface of the
earth. The ancient Greeks flung out their colonies in every direction,
westward as far as Gaul, across the Mediterranean, and eastward into
Asia Minor, perhaps to the very confines of India. The Romans, supported
by their armies and their government, spread their dominion beyond the
narrow lands of Italy until it stretched from the heather of Scotland to
the sands of Arabia. The Teutonic tribes, from their home beyond the
Danube and the Rhine, poured into the empire of the Caesars and made the
beginnings of modern Europe. Of this great sweep of races and empires
the settlement of America was merely a part. And it was, moreover, only
one aspect of the expansion which finally carried the peoples, the
institutions, and the trade of Europe to the very ends of the earth.

In one vital point, it must be noted, American colonization differed
from that of the ancients. The Greeks usually carried with them
affection for the government they left behind and sacred fire from the
altar of the parent city; but thousands of the immigrants who came to
America disliked the state and disowned the church of the mother
country. They established compacts of government for themselves and set
up altars of their own. They sought not only new soil to till but also
political and religious liberty for themselves and their children.

THE AGENCIES OF AMERICAN COLONIZATION

It was no light matter for the English to cross three thousand miles of
water and found homes in the American wilderness at the opening of the
seventeenth century. Ships, tools, and supplies called for huge outlays
of money. Stores had to be furnished in quantities sufficient to sustain
the life of the settlers until they could gather harvests of their own.
Artisans and laborers of skill and industry had to be induced to risk
the hazards of the new world. Soldiers were required for defense and
mariners for the exploration of inland waters. Leaders of good judgment,
adept in managing men, had to be discovered. Altogether such an
enterprise demanded capital larger than the ordinary merchant or
gentleman could amass and involved risks more imminent than he dared to
assume. Though in later days, after initial tests had been made, wealthy
proprietors were able to establish colonies on their own account, it was
the corporation that furnished the capital and leadership in the
beginning.

=The Trading Company.=--English pioneers in exploration found an
instrument for colonization in companies of merchant adventurers, which
had long been employed in carrying on commerce with foreign countries.
Such a corporation was composed of many persons of different ranks of
society--noblemen, merchants, and gentlemen--who banded together for a
particular undertaking, each contributing a sum of money and sharing in
the profits of the venture. It was organized under royal authority; it
received its charter, its grant of land, and its trading privileges from
the king and carried on its operations under his supervision and
control. The charter named all the persons originally included in the
corporation and gave them certain powers in the management of its
affairs, including the right to admit new members. The company was in
fact a little government set up by the king. When the members of the
corporation remained in England, as in the case of the Virginia Company,
they operated through agents sent to the colony. When they came over the
seas themselves and settled in America, as in the case of Massachusetts,
they became the direct government of the country they possessed. The
stockholders in that instance became the voters and the governor, the
chief magistrate.

[Illustration: JOHN WINTHROP, GOVERNOR OF THE MASSACHUSETTS BAY
COMPANY]

Four of the thirteen colonies in America owed their origins to the
trading corporation. It was the London Company, created by King James I,
in 1606, that laid during the following year the foundations of Virginia
at Jamestown. It was under the auspices of their West India Company,
chartered in 1621, that the Dutch planted the settlements of the New
Netherland in the valley of the Hudson. The founders of Massachusetts
were Puritan leaders and men of affairs whom King Charles I incorporated
in 1629 under the title: "The governor and company of the Massachusetts
Bay in New England." In this case the law did but incorporate a group
drawn together by religious ties. "We must be knit together as one man,"
wrote John Winthrop, the first Puritan governor in America. Far to the
south, on the banks of the Delaware River, a Swedish commercial company
in 1638 made the beginnings of a settlement, christened New Sweden; it
was destined to pass under the rule of the Dutch, and finally under the
rule of William Penn as the proprietary colony of Delaware.

In a certain sense, Georgia may be included among the "company
colonies." It was, however, originally conceived by the moving spirit,
James Oglethorpe, as an asylum for poor men, especially those imprisoned
for debt. To realize this humane purpose, he secured from King George
II, in 1732, a royal charter uniting several gentlemen, including
himself, into "one body politic and corporate," known as the "Trustees
for establishing the colony of Georgia in America." In the structure of
their organization and their methods of government, the trustees did not
differ materially from the regular companies created for trade and
colonization. Though their purposes were benevolent, their transactions
had to be under the forms of law and according to the rules of business.

=The Religious Congregation.=--A second agency which figured largely in
the settlement of America was the religious brotherhood, or
congregation, of men and women brought together in the bonds of a common
religious faith. By one of the strange fortunes of history, this
institution, founded in the early days of Christianity, proved to be a
potent force in the origin and growth of self-government in a land far
away from Galilee. "And the multitude of them that believed were of one
heart and of one soul," we are told in the Acts describing the Church at
Jerusalem. "We are knit together as a body in a most sacred covenant of
the Lord ... by virtue of which we hold ourselves strictly tied to all
care of each other's good and of the whole," wrote John Robinson, a
leader among the Pilgrims who founded their tiny colony of Plymouth in
1620. The Mayflower Compact, so famous in American history, was but a
written and signed agreement, incorporating the spirit of obedience to
the common good, which served as a guide to self-government until
Plymouth was annexed to Massachusetts in 1691.

[Illustration: THE ORIGINAL GRANTS]

Three other colonies, all of which retained their identity until the eve
of the American Revolution, likewise sprang directly from the
congregations of the faithful: Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New
Hampshire, mainly offshoots from Massachusetts. They were founded by
small bodies of men and women, "united in solemn covenants with the
Lord," who planted their settlements in the wilderness. Not until many a
year after Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson conducted their followers
to the Narragansett country was Rhode Island granted a charter of
incorporation (1663) by the crown. Not until long after the congregation
of Thomas Hooker from Newtown blazed the way into the Connecticut River
Valley did the king of England give Connecticut a charter of its own
(1662) and a place among the colonies. Half a century elapsed before the
towns laid out beyond the Merrimac River by emigrants from Massachusetts
were formed into the royal province of New Hampshire in 1679.

Even when Connecticut was chartered, the parchment and sealing wax of
the royal lawyers did but confirm rights and habits of self-government
and obedience to law previously established by the congregations. The
towns of Hartford, Windsor, and Wethersfield had long lived happily
under their "Fundamental Orders" drawn up by themselves in 1639; so had
the settlers dwelt peacefully at New Haven under their "Fundamental
Articles" drafted in the same year. The pioneers on the Connecticut
shore had no difficulty in agreeing that "the Scriptures do hold forth a
perfect rule for the direction and government of all men."

=The Proprietor.=--A third and very important colonial agency was the
proprietor, or proprietary. As the name, associated with the word
"property," implies, the proprietor was a person to whom the king
granted property in lands in North America to have, hold, use, and enjoy
for his own benefit and profit, with the right to hand the estate down
to his heirs in perpetual succession. The proprietor was a rich and
powerful person, prepared to furnish or secure the capital, collect the
ships, supply the stores, and assemble the settlers necessary to found
and sustain a plantation beyond the seas. Sometimes the proprietor
worked alone. Sometimes two or more were associated like partners in the
common undertaking.

Five colonies, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and the Carolinas,
owe their formal origins, though not always their first settlements, nor
in most cases their prosperity, to the proprietary system. Maryland,
established in 1634 under a Catholic nobleman, Lord Baltimore, and
blessed with religious toleration by the act of 1649, flourished under
the mild rule of proprietors until it became a state in the American
union. New Jersey, beginning its career under two proprietors, Berkeley
and Carteret, in 1664, passed under the direct government of the crown
in 1702. Pennsylvania was, in a very large measure, the product of the
generous spirit and tireless labors of its first proprietor, the leader
of the Friends, William Penn, to whom it was granted in 1681 and in
whose family it remained until 1776. The two Carolinas were first
organized as one colony in 1663 under the government and patronage of
eight proprietors, including Lord Clarendon; but after more than half a
century both became royal provinces governed by the king.

[Illustration: WILLIAM PENN, PROPRIETOR OF PENNSYLVANIA]

THE COLONIAL PEOPLES

=The English.=--In leadership and origin the thirteen colonies, except
New York and Delaware, were English. During the early days of all, save
these two, the main, if not the sole, current of immigration was from
England. The colonists came from every walk of life. They were men,
women, and children of "all sorts and conditions." The major portion
were yeomen, or small land owners, farm laborers, and artisans. With
them were merchants and gentlemen who brought their stocks of goods or
their fortunes to the New World. Scholars came from Oxford and
Cambridge to preach the gospel or to teach. Now and then the son of an
English nobleman left his baronial hall behind and cast his lot with
America. The people represented every religious faith--members of the
Established Church of England; Puritans who had labored to reform that
church; Separatists, Baptists, and Friends, who had left it altogether;
and Catholics, who clung to the religion of their fathers.

New England was almost purely English. During the years between 1629 and
1640, the period of arbitrary Stuart government, about twenty thousand
Puritans emigrated to America, settling in the colonies of the far
North. Although minor additions were made from time to time, the greater
portion of the New England people sprang from this original stock.
Virginia, too, for a long time drew nearly all her immigrants from
England alone. Not until the eve of the Revolution did other
nationalities, mainly the Scotch-Irish and Germans, rival the English in
numbers.

The populations of later English colonies--the Carolinas, New York,
Pennsylvania, and Georgia--while receiving a steady stream of
immigration from England, were constantly augmented by wanderers from
the older settlements. New York was invaded by Puritans from New England
in such numbers as to cause the Anglican clergymen there to lament that
"free thinking spreads almost as fast as the Church." North Carolina was
first settled toward the northern border by immigrants from Virginia.
Some of the North Carolinians, particularly the Quakers, came all the
way from New England, tarrying in Virginia only long enough to learn how
little they were wanted in that Anglican colony.

=The Scotch-Irish.=--Next to the English in numbers and influence were
the Scotch-Irish, Presbyterians in belief, English in tongue. Both
religious and economic reasons sent them across the sea. Their Scotch
ancestors, in the days of Cromwell, had settled in the north of Ireland
whence the native Irish had been driven by the conqueror's sword. There
the Scotch nourished for many years enjoying in peace their own form of
religion and growing prosperous in the manufacture of fine linen and
woolen cloth. Then the blow fell. Toward the end of the seventeenth
century their religious worship was put under the ban and the export of
their cloth was forbidden by the English Parliament. Within two decades
twenty thousand Scotch-Irish left Ulster alone, for America; and all
during the eighteenth century the migration continued to be heavy.
Although no exact record was kept, it is reckoned that the Scotch-Irish
and the Scotch who came directly from Scotland, composed one-sixth of
the entire American population on the eve of the Revolution.

[Illustration: SETTLEMENTS OF GERMAN AND SCOTCH-IRISH
IMMIGRANTS]

These newcomers in America made their homes chiefly in New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and the Carolinas. Coming late upon
the scene, they found much of the land immediately upon the seaboard
already taken up. For this reason most of them became frontier people
settling the interior and upland regions. There they cleared the land,
laid out their small farms, and worked as "sturdy yeomen on the soil,"
hardy, industrious, and independent in spirit, sharing neither the
luxuries of the rich planters nor the easy life of the leisurely
merchants. To their agriculture they added woolen and linen
manufactures, which, flourishing in the supple fingers of their tireless
women, made heavy inroads upon the trade of the English merchants in
the colonies. Of their labors a poet has sung:

"O, willing hands to toil;
Strong natures tuned to the harvest-song and bound to the kindly soil;
Bold pioneers for the wilderness, defenders in the field."

=The Germans.=--Third among the colonists in order of numerical
importance were the Germans. From the very beginning, they appeared in
colonial records. A number of the artisans and carpenters in the first
Jamestown colony were of German descent. Peter Minuit, the famous
governor of New Motherland, was a German from Wesel on the Rhine, and
Jacob Leisler, leader of a popular uprising against the provincial
administration of New York, was a German from Frankfort-on-Main. The
wholesale migration of Germans began with the founding of Pennsylvania.
Penn was diligent in searching for thrifty farmers to cultivate his
lands and he made a special effort to attract peasants from the Rhine
country. A great association, known as the Frankfort Company, bought
more than twenty thousand acres from him and in 1684 established a
center at Germantown for the distribution of German immigrants. In old
New York, Rhinebeck-on-the-Hudson became a similar center for
distribution. All the way from Maine to Georgia inducements were offered
to the German farmers and in nearly every colony were to be found, in
time, German settlements. In fact the migration became so large that
German princes were frightened at the loss of so many subjects and
England was alarmed by the influx of foreigners into her overseas
dominions. Yet nothing could stop the movement. By the end of the
colonial period, the number of Germans had risen to more than two
hundred thousand.

The majority of them were Protestants from the Rhine region, and South
Germany. Wars, religious controversies, oppression, and poverty drove
them forth to America. Though most of them were farmers, there were also
among them skilled artisans who contributed to the rapid growth of
industries in Pennsylvania. Their iron, glass, paper, and woolen mills,
dotted here and there among the thickly settled regions, added to the
wealth and independence of the province.

[Illustration: _From an old print_

A GLIMPSE OF OLD GERMANTOWN]

Unlike the Scotch-Irish, the Germans did not speak the language of the
original colonists or mingle freely with them. They kept to themselves,
built their own schools, founded their own newspapers, and published
their own books. Their clannish habits often irritated their neighbors
and led to occasional agitations against "foreigners." However, no
serious collisions seem to have occurred; and in the days of the
Revolution, German soldiers from Pennsylvania fought in the patriot
armies side by side with soldiers from the English and Scotch-Irish
sections.

=Other Nationalities.=--Though the English, the Scotch-Irish, and the
Germans made up the bulk of the colonial population, there were other
racial strains as well, varying in numerical importance but contributing
their share to colonial life.

From France came the Huguenots fleeing from the decree of the king which
inflicted terrible penalties upon Protestants.

From "Old Ireland" came thousands of native Irish, Celtic in race and
Catholic in religion. Like their Scotch-Irish neighbors to the north,
they revered neither the government nor the church of England imposed
upon them by the sword. How many came we do not know, but shipping
records of the colonial period show that boatload after boatload left
the southern and eastern shores of Ireland for the New World.
Undoubtedly thousands of their passengers were Irish of the native
stock. This surmise is well sustained by the constant appearance of
Celtic names in the records of various colonies.

[Illustration:_From an old print_

OLD DUTCH FORT AND ENGLISH CHURCH NEAR ALBANY]

The Jews, then as ever engaged in their age-long battle for religious
and economic toleration, found in the American colonies, not complete
liberty, but certainly more freedom than they enjoyed in England,
France, Spain, or Portugal. The English law did not actually recognize
their right to live in any of the dominions, but owing to the easy-going
habits of the Americans they were allowed to filter into the seaboard
towns. The treatment they received there varied. On one occasion the
mayor and council of New York forbade them to sell by retail and on
another prohibited the exercise of their religious worship. Newport,
Philadelphia, and Charleston were more hospitable, and there large
Jewish colonies, consisting principally of merchants and their families,
flourished in spite of nominal prohibitions of the law.

Though the small Swedish colony in Delaware was quickly submerged
beneath the tide of English migration, the Dutch in New York continued
to hold their own for more than a hundred years after the English
conquest in 1664. At the end of the colonial period over one-half of the
170,000 inhabitants of the province were descendants of the original
Dutch--still distinct enough to give a decided cast to the life and
manners of New York. Many of them clung as tenaciously to their mother
tongue as they did to their capacious farmhouses or their Dutch ovens;
but they were slowly losing their identity as the English pressed in
beside them to farm and trade.

The melting pot had begun its historic mission.

THE PROCESS OF COLONIZATION

Considered from one side, colonization, whatever the motives of the
emigrants, was an economic matter. It involved the use of capital to pay
for their passage, to sustain them on the voyage, and to start them on
the way of production. Under this stern economic necessity, Puritans,
Scotch-Irish, Germans, and all were alike laid.

=Immigrants Who Paid Their Own Way.=--Many of the immigrants to America
in colonial days were capitalists themselves, in a small or a large way,
and paid their own passage. What proportion of the colonists were able
to finance their voyage across the sea is a matter of pure conjecture.
Undoubtedly a very considerable number could do so, for we can trace the
family fortunes of many early settlers. Henry Cabot Lodge is authority
for the statement that "the settlers of New England were drawn from the
country gentlemen, small farmers, and yeomanry of the mother
country.... Many of the emigrants were men of wealth, as the old lists
show, and all of them, with few exceptions, were men of property and
good standing. They did not belong to the classes from which emigration
is usually supplied, for they all had a stake in the country they left
behind." Though it would be interesting to know how accurate this
statement is or how applicable to the other colonies, no study has as
yet been made to gratify that interest. For the present it is an
unsolved problem just how many of the colonists were able to bear the
cost of their own transfer to the New World.

=Indentured Servants.=--That at least tens of thousands of immigrants
were unable to pay for their passage is established beyond the shadow of
a doubt by the shipping records that have come down to us. The great
barrier in the way of the poor who wanted to go to America was the cost
of the sea voyage. To overcome this difficulty a plan was worked out
whereby shipowners and other persons of means furnished the passage
money to immigrants in return for their promise, or bond, to work for a
term of years to repay the sum advanced. This system was called
indentured servitude.

It is probable that the number of bond servants exceeded the original
twenty thousand Puritans, the yeomen, the Virginia gentlemen, and the
Huguenots combined. All the way down the coast from Massachusetts to
Georgia were to be found in the fields, kitchens, and workshops, men,
women, and children serving out terms of bondage generally ranging from
five to seven years. In the proprietary colonies the proportion of bond
servants was very high. The Baltimores, Penns, Carterets, and other
promoters anxiously sought for workers of every nationality to till
their fields, for land without labor was worth no more than land in the
moon. Hence the gates of the proprietary colonies were flung wide open.
Every inducement was offered to immigrants in the form of cheap land,
and special efforts were made to increase the population by importing
servants. In Pennsylvania, it was not uncommon to find a master with
fifty bond servants on his estate. It has been estimated that two-thirds
of all the immigrants into Pennsylvania between the opening of the
eighteenth century and the outbreak of the Revolution were in bondage.
In the other Middle colonies the number was doubtless not so large; but
it formed a considerable part of the population.

The story of this traffic in white servants is one of the most striking
things in the history of labor. Bondmen differed from the serfs of the
feudal age in that they were not bound to the soil but to the master.
They likewise differed from the negro slaves in that their servitude had
a time limit. Still they were subject to many special disabilities. It
was, for instance, a common practice to impose on them penalties far
heavier than were imposed upon freemen for the same offense. A free
citizen of Pennsylvania who indulged in horse racing and gambling was
let off with a fine; a white servant guilty of the same unlawful conduct
was whipped at the post and fined as well.

The ordinary life of the white servant was also severely restricted. A
bondman could not marry without his master's consent; nor engage in
trade; nor refuse work assigned to him. For an attempt to escape or
indeed for any infraction of the law, the term of service was extended.
The condition of white bondmen in Virginia, according to Lodge, "was
little better than that of slaves. Loose indentures and harsh laws put
them at the mercy of their masters." It would not be unfair to add that
such was their lot in all other colonies. Their fate depended upon the
temper of their masters.

Cruel as was the system in many ways, it gave thousands of people in the
Old World a chance to reach the New--an opportunity to wrestle with fate
for freedom and a home of their own. When their weary years of servitude
were over, if they survived, they might obtain land of their own or
settle as free mechanics in the towns. For many a bondman the gamble
proved to be a losing venture because he found himself unable to rise
out of the state of poverty and dependence into which his servitude
carried him. For thousands, on the contrary, bondage proved to be a real
avenue to freedom and prosperity. Some of the best citizens of America
have the blood of indentured servants in their veins.

=The Transported--Involuntary Servitude.=--In their anxiety to secure
settlers, the companies and proprietors having colonies in America
either resorted to or connived at the practice of kidnapping men, women,
and children from the streets of English cities. In 1680 it was
officially estimated that "ten thousand persons were spirited away" to
America. Many of the victims of the practice were young children, for
the traffic in them was highly profitable. Orphans and dependents were
sometimes disposed of in America by relatives unwilling to support them.
In a single year, 1627, about fifteen hundred children were shipped to
Virginia.

In this gruesome business there lurked many tragedies, and very few
romances. Parents were separated from their children and husbands from
their wives. Hundreds of skilled artisans--carpenters, smiths, and
weavers--utterly disappeared as if swallowed up by death. A few thus
dragged off to the New World to be sold into servitude for a term of
five or seven years later became prosperous and returned home with
fortunes. In one case a young man who was forcibly carried over the sea
lived to make his way back to England and establish his claim to a
peerage.

Akin to the kidnapped, at least in economic position, were convicts
deported to the colonies for life in lieu of fines and imprisonment. The
Americans protested vigorously but ineffectually against this practice.
Indeed, they exaggerated its evils, for many of the "criminals" were
only mild offenders against unduly harsh and cruel laws. A peasant
caught shooting a rabbit on a lord's estate or a luckless servant girl
who purloined a pocket handkerchief was branded as a criminal along with
sturdy thieves and incorrigible rascals. Other transported offenders
were "political criminals"; that is, persons who criticized or opposed
the government. This class included now Irish who revolted against
British rule in Ireland; now Cavaliers who championed the king against
the Puritan revolutionists; Puritans, in turn, dispatched after the
monarchy was restored; and Scotch and English subjects in general who
joined in political uprisings against the king.

=The African Slaves.=--Rivaling in numbers, in the course of time, the
indentured servants and whites carried to America against their will
were the African negroes brought to America and sold into slavery. When
this form of bondage was first introduced into Virginia in 1619, it was
looked upon as a temporary necessity to be discarded with the increase
of the white population. Moreover it does not appear that those planters
who first bought negroes at the auction block intended to establish a
system of permanent bondage. Only by a slow process did chattel slavery
take firm root and become recognized as the leading source of the labor
supply. In 1650, thirty years after the introduction of slavery, there
were only three hundred Africans in Virginia.

The great increase in later years was due in no small measure to the
inordinate zeal for profits that seized slave traders both in Old and in
New England. Finding it relatively easy to secure negroes in Africa,
they crowded the Southern ports with their vessels. The English Royal
African Company sent to America annually between 1713 and 1743 from five
to ten thousand slaves. The ship owners of New England were not far
behind their English brethren in pushing this extraordinary traffic.

As the proportion of the negroes to the free white population steadily
rose, and as whole sections were overrun with slaves and slave traders,
the Southern colonies grew alarmed. In 1710, Virginia sought to curtail
the importation by placing a duty of L5 on each slave. This effort was
futile, for the royal governor promptly vetoed it. From time to time
similar bills were passed, only to meet with royal disapproval. South
Carolina, in 1760, absolutely prohibited importation; but the measure
was killed by the British crown. As late as 1772, Virginia, not daunted
by a century of rebuffs, sent to George III a petition in this vein:
"The importation of slaves into the colonies from the coast of Africa
hath long been considered as a trade of great inhumanity and under its
present encouragement, we have too much reason to fear, will endanger
the very existence of Your Majesty's American dominions.... Deeply
impressed with these sentiments, we most humbly beseech Your Majesty to
remove all those restraints on Your Majesty's governors of this colony
which inhibit their assenting to such laws as might check so very
pernicious a commerce."

All such protests were without avail. The negro population grew by leaps
and bounds, until on the eve of the Revolution it amounted to more than
half a million. In five states--Maryland, Virginia, the two Carolinas,
and Georgia--the slaves nearly equalled or actually exceeded the whites
in number. In South Carolina they formed almost two-thirds of the
population. Even in the Middle colonies of Delaware and Pennsylvania
about one-fifth of the inhabitants were from Africa. To the North, the
proportion of slaves steadily diminished although chattel servitude was
on the same legal footing as in the South. In New York approximately one
in six and in New England one in fifty were negroes, including a few
freedmen.

The climate, the soil, the commerce, and the industry of the North were
all unfavorable to the growth of a servile population. Still, slavery,
though sectional, was a part of the national system of economy. Northern
ships carried slaves to the Southern colonies and the produce of the
plantations to Europe. "If the Northern states will consult their
interest, they will not oppose the increase in slaves which will
increase the commodities of which they will become the carriers," said
John Rutledge, of South Carolina, in the convention which framed the
Constitution of the United States. "What enriches a part enriches the
whole and the states are the best judges of their particular interest,"
responded Oliver Ellsworth, the distinguished spokesman of Connecticut.

=References=

E. Charming, _History of the United States_, Vols. I and II.

J.A. Doyle, _The English Colonies in America_ (5 vols.).

J. Fiske, _Old Virginia and Her Neighbors_ (2 vols.).

A.B. Faust, _The German Element in the United States_ (2 vols.).

H.J. Ford, _The Scotch-Irish in America_.

L. Tyler, _England in America_ (American Nation Series).

R. Usher, _The Pilgrims and Their History_.

=Questions=

1. America has been called a nation of immigrants. Explain why.

2. Why were individuals unable to go alone to America in the beginning?
What agencies made colonization possible? Discuss each of them.

3. Make a table of the colonies, showing the methods employed in their
settlement.

4. Why were capital and leadership so very important in early
colonization?

5. What is meant by the "melting pot"? What nationalities were
represented among the early colonists?

6. Compare the way immigrants come to-day with the way they came in
colonial times.

7. Contrast indentured servitude with slavery and serfdom.

8. Account for the anxiety of companies and proprietors to secure
colonists.

9. What forces favored the heavy importation of slaves?

10. In what way did the North derive advantages from slavery?

=Research Topics=

=The Chartered Company.=--Compare the first and third charters of
Virginia in Macdonald, _Documentary Source Book of American History_,
1606-1898, pp. 1-14. Analyze the first and second Massachusetts charters
in Macdonald, pp. 22-84. Special reference: W.A.S. Hewins, _English
Trading Companies_.

=Congregations and Compacts for Self-government.=--A study of the
Mayflower Compact, the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut and the
Fundamental Articles of New Haven in Macdonald, pp. 19, 36, 39.
Reference: Charles Borgeaud, _Rise of Modern Democracy_, and C.S.
Lobingier, _The People's Law_, Chaps. I-VII.

=The Proprietary System.=--Analysis of Penn's charter of 1681, in
Macdonald, p. 80. Reference: Lodge, _Short History of the English
Colonies in America_, p. 211.

=Studies of Individual Colonies.=--Review of outstanding events in
history of each colony, using Elson, _History of the United States_, pp.
55-159, as the basis.

=Biographical Studies.=--John Smith, John Winthrop, William Penn, Lord
Baltimore, William Bradford, Roger Williams, Anne Hutchinson, Thomas
Hooker, and Peter Stuyvesant, using any good encyclopedia.

=Indentured Servitude.=--In Virginia, Lodge, _Short History_, pp. 69-72;
in Pennsylvania, pp. 242-244. Contemporary account in Callender,
_Economic History of the United States_, pp. 44-51. Special reference:
Karl Geiser, _Redemptioners and Indentured Servants_ (Yale Review, X,
No. 2 Supplement).

=Slavery.=--In Virginia, Lodge, _Short History_, pp. 67-69; in the
Northern colonies, pp. 241, 275, 322, 408, 442.

=The People of the Colonies.=--Virginia, Lodge, _Short History_, pp.
67-73; New England, pp. 406-409, 441-450; Pennsylvania, pp. 227-229,
240-250; New York, pp. 312-313, 322-335.

CHAPTER II

COLONIAL AGRICULTURE, INDUSTRY, AND COMMERCE

THE LAND AND THE WESTWARD MOVEMENT

=The Significance of Land Tenure.=--The way in which land may be
acquired, held, divided among heirs, and bought and sold exercises a
deep influence on the life and culture of a people. The feudal and
aristocratic societies of Europe were founded on a system of landlordism
which was characterized by two distinct features. In the first place,
the land was nearly all held in great estates, each owned by a single
proprietor. In the second place, every estate was kept intact under the
law of primogeniture, which at the death of a lord transferred all his
landed property to his eldest son. This prevented the subdivision of
estates and the growth of a large body of small farmers or freeholders
owning their own land. It made a form of tenantry or servitude
inevitable for the mass of those who labored on the land. It also
enabled the landlords to maintain themselves in power as a governing
class and kept the tenants and laborers subject to their economic and
political control. If land tenure was so significant in Europe, it was
equally important in the development of America, where practically all
the first immigrants were forced by circumstances to derive their
livelihood from the soil.

=Experiments in Common Tillage.=--In the New World, with its broad
extent of land awaiting the white man's plow, it was impossible to
introduce in its entirety and over the whole area the system of lords
and tenants that existed across the sea. So it happened that almost
every kind of experiment in land tenure, from communism to feudalism,
was tried. In the early days of the Jamestown colony, the land, though
owned by the London Company, was tilled in common by the settlers. No
man had a separate plot of his own. The motto of the community was:
"Labor and share alike." All were supposed to work in the fields and
receive an equal share of the produce. At Plymouth, the Pilgrims
attempted a similar experiment, laying out the fields in common and
distributing the joint produce of their labor with rough equality among
the workers.

In both colonies the communistic experiments were failures. Angry at the
lazy men in Jamestown who idled their time away and yet expected regular
meals, Captain John Smith issued a manifesto: "Everyone that gathereth
not every day as much as I do, the next day shall be set beyond the
river and forever banished from the fort and live there or starve." Even
this terrible threat did not bring a change in production. Not until
each man was given a plot of his own to till, not until each gathered
the fruits of his own labor, did the colony prosper. In Plymouth, where
the communal experiment lasted for five years, the results were similar
to those in Virginia, and the system was given up for one of separate
fields in which every person could "set corn for his own particular."
Some other New England towns, refusing to profit by the experience of
their Plymouth neighbor, also made excursions into common ownership and
labor, only to abandon the idea and go in for individual ownership of
the land. "By degrees it was seen that even the Lord's people could not
carry the complicated communist legislation into perfect and wholesome
practice."

=Feudal Elements in the Colonies--Quit Rents, Manors, and
Plantations.=--At the other end of the scale were the feudal elements of
land tenure found in the proprietary colonies, in the seaboard regions
of the South, and to some extent in New York. The proprietor was in fact
a powerful feudal lord, owning land granted to him by royal charter. He
could retain any part of it for his personal use or dispose of it all in
large or small lots. While he generally kept for himself an estate of
baronial proportions, it was impossible for him to manage directly any
considerable part of the land in his dominion. Consequently he either
sold it in parcels for lump sums or granted it to individuals on
condition that they make to him an annual payment in money, known as
"quit rent." In Maryland, the proprietor sometimes collected as high as
L9000 (equal to about $500,000 to-day) in a single year from this
source. In Pennsylvania, the quit rents brought a handsome annual
tribute into the exchequer of the Penn family. In the royal provinces,
the king of England claimed all revenues collected in this form from the
land, a sum amounting to L19,000 at the time of the Revolution. The quit
rent,--"really a feudal payment from freeholders,"--was thus a material
source of income for the crown as well as for the proprietors. Wherever
it was laid, however, it proved to be a burden, a source of constant
irritation; and it became a formidable item in the long list of
grievances which led to the American Revolution.

Something still more like the feudal system of the Old World appeared in
the numerous manors or the huge landed estates granted by the crown, the
companies, or the proprietors. In the colony of Maryland alone there
were sixty manors of three thousand acres each, owned by wealthy men and
tilled by tenants holding small plots under certain restrictions of
tenure. In New York also there were many manors of wide extent, most of
which originated in the days of the Dutch West India Company, when
extensive concessions were made to patroons to induce them to bring over
settlers. The Van Rensselaer, the Van Cortlandt, and the Livingston
manors were so large and populous that each was entitled to send a
representative to the provincial legislature. The tenants on the New
York manors were in somewhat the same position as serfs on old European
estates. They were bound to pay the owner a rent in money and kind; they
ground their grain at his mill; and they were subject to his judicial
power because he held court and meted out justice, in some instances
extending to capital punishment.

The manors of New York or Maryland were, however, of slight consequence
as compared with the vast plantations of the Southern seaboard--huge
estates, far wider in expanse than many a European barony and tilled by
slaves more servile than any feudal tenants. It must not be forgotten
that this system of land tenure became the dominant feature of a large
section and gave a decided bent to the economic and political life of
America.

[Illustration: SOUTHERN PLANTATION MANSION]

=The Small Freehold.=--In the upland regions of the South, however, and
throughout most of the North, the drift was against all forms of
servitude and tenantry and in the direction of the freehold; that is,
the small farm owned outright and tilled by the possessor and his
family. This was favored by natural circumstances and the spirit of the
immigrants. For one thing, the abundance of land and the scarcity of
labor made it impossible for the companies, the proprietors, or the
crown to develop over the whole continent a network of vast estates. In
many sections, particularly in New England, the climate, the stony soil,
the hills, and the narrow valleys conspired to keep the farms within a
moderate compass. For another thing, the English, Scotch-Irish, and
German peasants, even if they had been tenants in the Old World, did not
propose to accept permanent dependency of any kind in the New. If they
could not get freeholds, they would not settle at all; thus they forced
proprietors and companies to bid for their enterprise by selling land in
small lots. So it happened that the freehold of modest proportions
became the cherished unit of American farmers. The people who tilled the
farms were drawn from every quarter of western Europe; but the freehold
system gave a uniform cast to their economic and social life in America.

[Illustration: _From an old print_

A NEW ENGLAND FARMHOUSE]

=Social Effects of Land Tenure.=--Land tenure and the process of western
settlement thus developed two distinct types of people engaged in the
same pursuit--agriculture. They had a common tie in that they both
cultivated the soil and possessed the local interest and independence
which arise from that occupation. Their methods and their culture,
however, differed widely.

The Southern planter, on his broad acres tilled by slaves, resembled the
English landlord on his estates more than he did the colonial farmer who
labored with his own hands in the fields and forests. He sold his rice
and tobacco in large amounts directly to English factors, who took his
entire crop in exchange for goods and cash. His fine clothes,
silverware, china, and cutlery he bought in English markets. Loving the
ripe old culture of the mother country, he often sent his sons to Oxford
or Cambridge for their education. In short, he depended very largely for
his prosperity and his enjoyment of life upon close relations with the
Old World. He did not even need market towns in which to buy native
goods, for they were made on his own plantation by his own artisans who
were usually gifted slaves.

The economic condition of the small farmer was totally different. His
crops were not big enough to warrant direct connection with English
factors or the personal maintenance of a corps of artisans. He needed
local markets, and they sprang up to meet the need. Smiths, hatters,
weavers, wagon-makers, and potters at neighboring towns supplied him
with the rough products of their native skill. The finer goods, bought
by the rich planter in England, the small farmer ordinarily could not
buy. His wants were restricted to staples like tea and sugar, and
between him and the European market stood the merchant. His community
was therefore more self-sufficient than the seaboard line of great
plantations. It was more isolated, more provincial, more independent,
more American. The planter faced the Old East. The farmer faced the New
West.

=The Westward Movement.=--Yeoman and planter nevertheless were alike in
one respect. Their land hunger was never appeased. Each had the eye of
an expert for new and fertile soil; and so, north and south, as soon as
a foothold was secured on the Atlantic coast, the current of migration
set in westward, creeping through forests, across rivers, and over
mountains. Many of the later immigrants, in their search for cheap
lands, were compelled to go to the border; but in a large part the path
breakers to the West were native Americans of the second and third
generations. Explorers, fired by curiosity and the lure of the
mysterious unknown, and hunters, fur traders, and squatters, following
their own sweet wills, blazed the trail, opening paths and sending back
stories of the new regions they traversed. Then came the regular
settlers with lawful titles to the lands they had purchased, sometimes
singly and sometimes in companies.

In Massachusetts, the westward movement is recorded in the founding of
Springfield in 1636 and Great Barrington in 1725. By the opening of the
eighteenth century the pioneers of Connecticut had pushed north and west
until their outpost towns adjoined the Hudson Valley settlements. In New
York, the inland movement was directed by the Hudson River to Albany,
and from that old Dutch center it radiated in every direction,
particularly westward through the Mohawk Valley. New Jersey was early
filled to its borders, the beginnings of the present city of New
Brunswick being made in 1681 and those of Trenton in 1685. In
Pennsylvania, as in New York, the waterways determined the main lines of
advance. Pioneers, pushing up through the valley of the Schuylkill,
spread over the fertile lands of Berks and Lancaster counties, laying
out Reading in 1748. Another current of migration was directed by the
Susquehanna, and, in 1726, the first farmhouse was built on the bank
where Harrisburg was later founded. Along the southern tier of counties
a thin line of settlements stretched westward to Pittsburgh, reaching
the upper waters of the Ohio while the colony was still under the Penn
family.

In the South the westward march was equally swift. The seaboard was
quickly occupied by large planters and their slaves engaged in the
cultivation of tobacco and rice. The Piedmont Plateau, lying back from
the coast all the way from Maryland to Georgia, was fed by two streams
of migration, one westward from the sea and the other southward from the
other colonies--Germans from Pennsylvania and Scotch-Irish furnishing
the main supply. "By 1770, tide-water Virginia was full to overflowing
and the 'back country' of the Blue Ridge and the Shenandoah was fully
occupied. Even the mountain valleys ... were claimed by sturdy pioneers.
Before the Declaration of Independence, the oncoming tide of
home-seekers had reached the crest of the Alleghanies."

[Illustration: DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION, 1790]

Beyond the mountains pioneers had already ventured, harbingers of an
invasion that was about to break in upon Kentucky and Tennessee. As
early as 1769 that mighty Nimrod, Daniel Boone, curious to hunt
buffaloes, of which he had heard weird reports, passed through the
Cumberland Gap and brought back news of a wonderful country awaiting the
plow. A hint was sufficient. Singly, in pairs, and in groups, settlers
followed the trail he had blazed. A great land corporation, the
Transylvania Company, emulating the merchant adventurers of earlier
times, secured a huge grant of territory and sought profits in quit
rents from lands sold to farmers. By the outbreak of the Revolution
there were several hundred people in the Kentucky region. Like the older
colonists, they did not relish quit rents, and their opposition wrecked
the Transylvania Company. They even carried their protests into the
Continental Congress in 1776, for by that time they were our "embryo
fourteenth colony."

INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Though the labor of the colonists was mainly spent in farming, there was
a steady growth in industrial and commercial pursuits. Most of the
staple industries of to-day, not omitting iron and textiles, have their
beginnings in colonial times. Manufacturing and trade soon gave rise to
towns which enjoyed an importance all out of proportion to their
numbers. The great centers of commerce and finance on the seaboard
originated in the days when the king of England was "lord of these
dominions."

[Illustration: DOMESTIC INDUSTRY: DIPPING TALLOW CANDLES]

=Textile Manufacture as a Domestic Industry.=--Colonial women, in
addition to sharing every hardship of pioneering, often the heavy labor
of the open field, developed in the course of time a national industry
which was almost exclusively their own. Wool and flax were raised in
abundance in the North and South. "Every farm house," says Coman, the
economic historian, "was a workshop where the women spun and wove the
serges, kerseys, and linsey-woolseys which served for the common wear."
By the close of the seventeenth century, New England manufactured cloth
in sufficient quantities to export it to the Southern colonies and to
the West Indies. As the industry developed, mills were erected for the
more difficult process of dyeing, weaving, and fulling, but carding and
spinning continued to be done in the home. The Dutch of New Netherland,
the Swedes of Delaware, and the Scotch-Irish of the interior "were not
one whit behind their Yankee neighbors."

The importance of this enterprise to British economic life can hardly be
overestimated. For many a century the English had employed their fine
woolen cloth as the chief staple in a lucrative foreign trade, and the
government had come to look upon it as an object of special interest and
protection. When the colonies were established, both merchants and
statesmen naturally expected to maintain a monopoly of increasing value;
but before long the Americans, instead of buying cloth, especially of
the coarser varieties, were making it to sell. In the place of
customers, here were rivals. In the place of helpless reliance upon
English markets, here was the germ of economic independence.

If British merchants had not discovered it in the ordinary course of
trade, observant officers in the provinces would have conveyed the news
to them. Even in the early years of the eighteenth century the royal
governor of New York wrote of the industrious Americans to his home
government: "The consequence will be that if they can clothe themselves
once, not only comfortably, but handsomely too, without the help of
England, they who already are not very fond of submitting to government
will soon think of putting in execution designs they have long harboured
in their breasts. This will not seem strange when you consider what sort
of people this country is inhabited by."

=The Iron Industry.=--Almost equally widespread was the art of iron
working--one of the earliest and most picturesque of colonial
industries. Lynn, Massachusetts, had a forge and skilled artisans within
fifteen years after the founding of Boston. The smelting of iron began
at New London and New Haven about 1658; in Litchfield county,
Connecticut, a few years later; at Great Barrington, Massachusetts, in
1731; and near by at Lenox some thirty years after that. New Jersey had
iron works at Shrewsbury within ten years after the founding of the
colony in 1665. Iron forges appeared in the valleys of the Delaware and
the Susquehanna early in the following century, and iron masters then
laid the foundations of fortunes in a region destined to become one of
the great iron centers of the world. Virginia began iron working in the
year that saw the introduction of slavery. Although the industry soon
lapsed, it was renewed and flourished in the eighteenth century.
Governor Spotswood was called the "Tubal Cain" of the Old Dominion
because he placed the industry on a firm foundation. Indeed it seems
that every colony, except Georgia, had its iron foundry. Nails, wire,
metallic ware, chains, anchors, bar and pig iron were made in large
quantities; and Great Britain, by an act in 1750, encouraged the
colonists to export rough iron to the British Islands.

=Shipbuilding.=--Of all the specialized industries in the colonies,
shipbuilding was the most important. The abundance of fir for masts, oak
for timbers and boards, pitch for tar and turpentine, and hemp for rope
made the way of the shipbuilder easy. Early in the seventeenth century a
ship was built at New Amsterdam, and by the middle of that century
shipyards were scattered along the New England coast at Newburyport,
Salem, New Bedford, Newport, Providence, New London, and New Haven.
Yards at Albany and Poughkeepsie in New York built ships for the trade
of that colony with England and the Indies. Wilmington and Philadelphia
soon entered the race and outdistanced New York, though unable to equal
the pace set by New England. While Maryland, Virginia, and South
Carolina also built ships, Southern interest was mainly confined to the
lucrative business of producing ship materials: fir, cedar, hemp, and
tar.

=Fishing.=--The greatest single economic resource of New England outside
of agriculture was the fisheries. This industry, started by hardy
sailors from Europe, long before the landing of the Pilgrims, flourished
under the indomitable seamanship of the Puritans, who labored with the
net and the harpoon in almost every quarter of the Atlantic. "Look,"
exclaimed Edmund Burke, in the House of Commons, "at the manner in
which the people of New England have of late carried on the whale
fishery. Whilst we follow them among the tumbling mountains of ice and
behold them penetrating into the deepest frozen recesses of Hudson's Bay
and Davis's Straits, while we are looking for them beneath the arctic
circle, we hear that they have pierced into the opposite region of polar
cold, that they are at the antipodes and engaged under the frozen
serpent of the south.... Nor is the equinoctial heat more discouraging
to them than the accumulated winter of both poles. We know that, whilst
some of them draw the line and strike the harpoon on the coast of
Africa, others run the longitude and pursue their gigantic game along
the coast of Brazil. No sea but what is vexed by their fisheries. No
climate that is not witness to their toils. Neither the perseverance of
Holland nor the activity of France nor the dexterous and firm sagacity
of English enterprise ever carried this most perilous mode of hard
industry to the extent to which it has been pushed by this recent
people."

The influence of the business was widespread. A large and lucrative
European trade was built upon it. The better quality of the fish caught
for food was sold in the markets of Spain, Portugal, and Italy, or
exchanged for salt, lemons, and raisins for the American market. The
lower grades of fish were carried to the West Indies for slave
consumption, and in part traded for sugar and molasses, which furnished
the raw materials for the thriving rum industry of New England. These
activities, in turn, stimulated shipbuilding, steadily enlarging the
demand for fishing and merchant craft of every kind and thus keeping the
shipwrights, calkers, rope makers, and other artisans of the seaport
towns rushed with work. They also increased trade with the mother
country for, out of the cash collected in the fish markets of Europe and
the West Indies, the colonists paid for English manufactures. So an
ever-widening circle of American enterprise centered around this single
industry, the nursery of seamanship and the maritime spirit.

=Oceanic Commerce and American Merchants.=--All through the eighteenth
century, the commerce of the American colonies spread in every direction
until it rivaled in the number of people employed, the capital engaged,
and the profits gleaned, the commerce of European nations. A modern
historian has said: "The enterprising merchants of New England developed
a network of trade routes that covered well-nigh half the world." This
commerce, destined to be of such significance in the conflict with the
mother country, presented, broadly speaking, two aspects.

On the one side, it involved the export of raw materials and
agricultural produce. The Southern colonies produced for shipping,
tobacco, rice, tar, pitch, and pine; the Middle colonies, grain, flour,
furs, lumber, and salt pork; New England, fish, flour, rum, furs, shoes,
and small articles of manufacture. The variety of products was in fact
astounding. A sarcastic writer, while sneering at the idea of an
American union, once remarked of colonial trade: "What sort of dish will
you make? New England will throw in fish and onions. The middle states,
flax-seed and flour. Maryland and Virginia will add tobacco. North
Carolina, pitch, tar, and turpentine. South Carolina, rice and indigo,
and Georgia will sprinkle the whole composition with sawdust. Such an
absurd jumble will you make if you attempt to form a union among such
discordant materials as the thirteen British provinces."

On the other side, American commerce involved the import trade,
consisting principally of English and continental manufactures, tea, and
"India goods." Sugar and molasses, brought from the West Indies,
supplied the flourishing distilleries of Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
and Connecticut. The carriage of slaves from Africa to the Southern
colonies engaged hundreds of New England's sailors and thousands of
pounds of her capital.

The disposition of imported goods in the colonies, though in part
controlled by English factors located in America, employed also a large
and important body of American merchants like the Willings and Morrises
of Philadelphia; the Amorys, Hancocks, and Faneuils of Boston; and the
Livingstons and Lows of New York. In their zeal and enterprise, they
were worthy rivals of their English competitors, so celebrated for
world-wide commercial operations. Though fully aware of the advantages
they enjoyed in British markets and under the protection of the British
navy, the American merchants were high-spirited and mettlesome, ready to
contend with royal officers in order to shield American interests
against outside interference.

[Illustration: THE DUTCH WEST INDIA WAREHOUSE IN NEW AMSTERDAM
(NEW YORK CITY)]

Measured against the immense business of modern times, colonial commerce
seems perhaps trivial. That, however, is not the test of its
significance. It must be considered in relation to the growth of English
colonial trade in its entirety--a relation which can be shown by a few
startling figures. The whole export trade of England, including that to
the colonies, was, in 1704, L6,509,000. On the eve of the American
Revolution, namely, in 1772, English exports to the American colonies
alone amounted to L6,024,000; in other words, almost as much as the
whole foreign business of England two generations before. At the first
date, colonial trade was but one-twelfth of the English export business;
at the second date, it was considerably more than one-third. In 1704,
Pennsylvania bought in English markets goods to the value of L11,459; in
1772 the purchases of the same colony amounted to L507,909. In short,
Pennsylvania imports increased fifty times within sixty-eight years,
amounting in 1772 to almost the entire export trade of England to the
colonies at the opening of the century. The American colonies were
indeed a great source of wealth to English merchants.

=Intercolonial Commerce.=--Although the bad roads of colonial times made
overland transportation difficult and costly, the many rivers and
harbors along the coast favored a lively water-borne trade among the
colonies. The Connecticut, Hudson, Delaware, and Susquehanna rivers in
the North and the many smaller rivers in the South made it possible for
goods to be brought from, and carried to, the interior regions in little
sailing vessels with comparative ease. Sloops laden with manufactures,
domestic and foreign, collected at some city like Providence, New York,
or Philadelphia, skirted the coasts, visited small ports, and sailed up
the navigable rivers to trade with local merchants who had for exchange
the raw materials which they had gathered in from neighboring farms.
Larger ships carried the grain, live stock, cloth, and hardware of New
England to the Southern colonies, where they were traded for tobacco,
leather, tar, and ship timber. From the harbors along the Connecticut
shores there were frequent sailings down through Long Island Sound to
Maryland, Virginia, and the distant Carolinas.

=Growth of Towns.=--In connection with this thriving trade and industry
there grew up along the coast a number of prosperous commercial centers
which were soon reckoned among the first commercial towns of the whole
British empire, comparing favorably in numbers and wealth with such
ports as Liverpool and Bristol. The statistical records of that time are
mainly guesses; but we know that Philadelphia stood first in size among
these towns. Serving as the port of entry for Pennsylvania, Delaware,
and western Jersey, it had drawn within its borders, just before the
Revolution, about 25,000 inhabitants. Boston was second in rank, with
somewhat more than 20,000 people. New York, the "commercial capital of
Connecticut and old East Jersey," was slightly smaller than Boston, but
growing at a steady rate. The fourth town in size was Charleston, South
Carolina, with about 10,000 inhabitants. Newport in Rhode Island, a
center of rum manufacture and shipping, stood fifth, with a population
of about 7000. Baltimore and Norfolk were counted as "considerable
towns." In the interior, Hartford in Connecticut, Lancaster and York in
Pennsylvania, and Albany in New York, with growing populations and
increasing trade, gave prophecy of an urban America away from the
seaboard. The other towns were straggling villages. Williamsburg,
Virginia, for example, had about two hundred houses, in which dwelt a
dozen families of the gentry and a few score of tradesmen. Inland county
seats often consisted of nothing more than a log courthouse, a prison,
and one wretched inn to house judges, lawyers, and litigants during the
sessions of the court.

The leading towns exercised an influence on colonial opinion all out of
proportion to their population. They were the centers of wealth, for one
thing; of the press and political activity, for another. Merchants and
artisans could readily take concerted action on public questions arising
from their commercial operations. The towns were also centers for news,
gossip, religious controversy, and political discussion. In the market
places the farmers from the countryside learned of British policies and
laws, and so, mingling with the townsmen, were drawn into the main
currents of opinion which set in toward colonial nationalism and
independence.

=References=

J. Bishop, _History of American Manufactures_ (2 vols.).

E.L. Bogart, _Economic History of the United States_.

P.A. Bruce, _Economic History of Virginia_ (2 vols.).

E. Semple, _American History and Its Geographical Conditions_.

W. Weeden, _Economic and Social History of New England_. (2 vols.).

=Questions=

1. Is land in your community parceled out into small farms? Contrast the
system in your community with the feudal system of land tenure.

2. Are any things owned and used in common in your community? Why did
common tillage fail in colonial times?

3. Describe the elements akin to feudalism which were introduced in the
colonies.

4. Explain the success of freehold tillage.

5. Compare the life of the planter with that of the farmer.

6. How far had the western frontier advanced by 1776?

7. What colonial industry was mainly developed by women? Why was it very
important both to the Americans and to the English?

8. What were the centers for iron working? Ship building?

9. Explain how the fisheries affected many branches of trade and
industry.

10. Show how American trade formed a vital part of English business.

11. How was interstate commerce mainly carried on?

12. What were the leading towns? Did they compare in importance with
British towns of the same period?

=Research Topics=

=Land Tenure.=--Coman, _Industrial History_ (rev. ed.), pp. 32-38.
Special reference: Bruce, _Economic History of Virginia_, Vol. I, Chap.
VIII.

=Tobacco Planting in Virginia.=--Callender, _Economic History of the
United States_, pp. 22-28.

=Colonial Agriculture.=--Coman, pp. 48-63. Callender, pp. 69-74.
Reference: J.R.H. Moore, _Industrial History of the American People_,
pp. 131-162.

=Colonial Manufactures.=--Coman, pp. 63-73. Callender, pp. 29-44.
Special reference: Weeden, _Economic and Social History of New England_.

=Colonial Commerce.=--Coman, pp. 73-85. Callender, pp. 51-63, 78-84.
Moore, pp. 163-208. Lodge, _Short History of the English Colonies_, pp.
409-412, 229-231, 312-314.

Chapter III

SOCIAL AND POLITICAL PROGRESS

Colonial life, crowded as it was with hard and unremitting toil, left
scant leisure for the cultivation of the arts and sciences. There was
little money in private purses or public treasuries to be dedicated to
schools, libraries, and museums. Few there were with time to read long
and widely, and fewer still who could devote their lives to things that
delight the eye and the mind. And yet, poor and meager as the
intellectual life of the colonists may seem by way of comparison, heroic
efforts were made in every community to lift the people above the plane
of mere existence. After the first clearings were opened in the forests
those efforts were redoubled, and with lengthening years told upon the
thought and spirit of the land. The appearance, during the struggle with
England, of an extraordinary group of leaders familiar with history,
political philosophy, and the arts of war, government, and diplomacy
itself bore eloquent testimony to the high quality of the American
intellect. No one, not even the most critical, can run through the
writings of distinguished Americans scattered from Massachusetts to
Georgia--the Adamses, Ellsworth, the Morrises, the Livingstons,
Hamilton, Franklin, Washington, Madison, Marshall, Henry, the Randolphs,
and the Pinckneys--without coming to the conclusion that there was
something in American colonial life which fostered minds of depth and
power. Women surmounted even greater difficulties than the men in the
process of self-education, and their keen interest in public issues is
evident in many a record like the _Letters_ of Mrs. John Adams to her
husband during the Revolution; the writings of Mrs. Mercy Otis Warren,
the sister of James Otis, who measured her pen with the British
propagandists; and the patriot newspapers founded and managed by women.

THE LEADERSHIP OF THE CHURCHES

In the intellectual life of America, the churches assumed a role of high
importance. There were abundant reasons for this. In many of the
colonies--Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New England--the religious impulse
had been one of the impelling motives in stimulating immigration. In all
the colonies, the clergy, at least in the beginning, formed the only
class with any leisure to devote to matters of the spirit. They preached
on Sundays and taught school on week days. They led in the discussion of
local problems and in the formation of political opinion, so much of
which was concerned with the relation between church and state. They
wrote books and pamphlets. They filled most of the chairs in the
colleges; under clerical guidance, intellectual and spiritual, the
Americans received their formal education. In several of the provinces
the Anglican Church was established by law. In New England the Puritans
were supreme, notwithstanding the efforts of the crown to overbear their
authority. In the Middle colonies, particularly, the multiplication of
sects made the dominance of any single denomination impossible; and in
all of them there was a growing diversity of faith, which promised in
time a separation of church and state and freedom of opinion.

=The Church of England.=--Virginia was the stronghold of the English
system of church and state. The Anglican faith and worship were
prescribed by law, sustained by taxes imposed on all, and favored by the
governor, the provincial councilors, and the richest planters. "The
Established Church," says Lodge, "was one of the appendages of the
Virginia aristocracy. They controlled the vestries and the ministers,
and the parish church stood not infrequently on the estate of the
planter who built and managed it." As in England, Catholics and
Protestant Dissenters were at first laid under heavy disabilities. Only
slowly and on sufferance were they admitted to the province; but when
once they were even covertly tolerated, they pressed steadily in, until,
by the Revolution, they outnumbered the adherents of the established
order.

The Church was also sanctioned by law and supported by taxes in the
Carolinas after 1704, and in Georgia after that colony passed directly
under the crown in 1754--this in spite of the fact that the majority of
the inhabitants were Dissenters. Against the protests of the Catholics
it was likewise established in Maryland. In New York, too,
notwithstanding the resistance of the Dutch, the Established Church was
fostered by the provincial officials, and the Anglicans, embracing about
one-fifteenth of the population, exerted an influence all out of
proportion to their numbers.

Many factors helped to enhance the power of the English Church in the
colonies. It was supported by the British government and the official
class sent out to the provinces. Its bishops and archbishops in England
were appointed by the king, and its faith and service were set forth by
acts of Parliament. Having its seat of power in the English monarchy, it
could hold its clergy and missionaries loyal to the crown and so
counteract to some extent the independent spirit that was growing up in
America. The Church, always a strong bulwark of the state, therefore had
a political role to play here as in England. Able bishops and far-seeing
leaders firmly grasped this fact about the middle of the eighteenth
century and redoubled their efforts to augment the influence of the
Church in provincial affairs. Unhappily for their plans they failed to
calculate in advance the effect of their methods upon dissenting
Protestants, who still cherished memories of bitter religious conflicts
in the mother country.

=Puritanism in New England.=--If the established faith made for imperial
unity, the same could not be said of Puritanism. The Plymouth Pilgrims
had cast off all allegiance to the Anglican Church and established a
separate and independent congregation before they came to America. The
Puritans, essaying at first the task of reformers within the Church,
soon after their arrival in Massachusetts, likewise flung off their yoke
of union with the Anglicans. In each town a separate congregation was
organized, the male members choosing the pastor, the teachers, and the
other officers. They also composed the voters in the town meeting, where
secular matters were determined. The union of church and government was
thus complete, and uniformity of faith and life prescribed by law and
enforced by civil authorities; but this worked for local autonomy
instead of imperial unity.

The clergy became a powerful class, dominant through their learning and
their fearful denunciations of the faithless. They wrote the books for
the people to read--the famous Cotton Mather having three hundred and
eighty-three books and pamphlets to his credit. In cooeperation with the
civil officers they enforced a strict observance of the Puritan
Sabbath--a day of rest that began at six o'clock on Saturday evening and
lasted until sunset on Sunday. All work, all trading, all amusement, and
all worldly conversation were absolutely prohibited during those hours.
A thoughtless maid servant who for some earthly reason smiled in church
was in danger of being banished as a vagabond. Robert Pike, a devout
Puritan, thinking the sun had gone to rest, ventured forth on horseback
one Sunday evening and was luckless enough to have a ray of light strike
him through a rift in the clouds. The next day he was brought into court
and fined for "his ungodly conduct." With persons accused of witchcraft
the Puritans were still more ruthless. When a mania of persecution swept
over Massachusetts in 1692, eighteen people were hanged, one was pressed
to death, many suffered imprisonment, and two died in jail.

Just about this time, however, there came a break in the uniformity of
Puritan rule. The crown and church in England had long looked upon it
with disfavor, and in 1684 King Charles II annulled the old charter of
the Massachusetts Bay Company. A new document issued seven years later
wrested from the Puritans of the colony the right to elect their own
governor and reserved the power of appointment to the king. It also
abolished the rule limiting the suffrage to church members, substituting
for it a simple property qualification. Thus a royal governor and an
official family, certain to be Episcopalian in faith and monarchist in
sympathies, were forced upon Massachusetts; and members of all religious
denominations, if they had the required amount of property, were
permitted to take part in elections. By this act in the name of the
crown, the Puritan monopoly was broken down in Massachusetts, and that
province was brought into line with Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New
Hampshire, where property, not religious faith, was the test for the
suffrage.

=Growth of Religious Toleration.=--Though neither the Anglicans of
Virginia nor the Puritans of Massachusetts believed in toleration for
other denominations, that principle was strictly applied in Rhode
Island. There, under the leadership of Roger Williams, liberty in
matters of conscience was established in the beginning. Maryland, by
granting in 1649 freedom to those who professed to believe in Jesus
Christ, opened its gates to all Christians; and Pennsylvania, true to
the tenets of the Friends, gave freedom of conscience to those "who
confess and acknowledge the one Almighty and Eternal God to be the
creator, upholder, and ruler of the World." By one circumstance or
another, the Middle colonies were thus early characterized by diversity
rather than uniformity of opinion. Dutch Protestants, Huguenots,
Quakers, Baptists, Presbyterians, New Lights, Moravians, Lutherans,
Catholics, and other denominations became too strongly intrenched and
too widely scattered to permit any one of them to rule, if it had
desired to do so. There were communities and indeed whole sections where
one or another church prevailed, but in no colony was a legislature
steadily controlled by a single group. Toleration encouraged diversity,
and diversity, in turn, worked for greater toleration.

The government and faith of the dissenting denominations conspired with
economic and political tendencies to draw America away from the English
state. Presbyterians, Quakers, Baptists, and Puritans had no hierarchy
of bishops and archbishops to bind them to the seat of power in London.
Neither did they look to that metropolis for guidance in interpreting
articles of faith. Local self-government in matters ecclesiastical
helped to train them for local self-government in matters political. The
spirit of independence which led Dissenters to revolt in the Old World,
nourished as it was amid favorable circumstances in the New World, made
them all the more zealous in the defense of every right against
authority imposed from without.

SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES

=Religion and Local Schools.=--One of the first cares of each Protestant
denomination was the education of the children in the faith. In this
work the Bible became the center of interest. The English version was
indeed the one book of the people. Farmers, shopkeepers, and artisans,
whose life had once been bounded by the daily routine of labor, found in
the Scriptures not only an inspiration to religious conduct, but also a
book of romance, travel, and history. "Legend and annal," says John
Richard Green, "war-song and psalm, state-roll and biography, the mighty
voices of prophets, the parables of Evangelists, stories of mission
journeys, of perils by sea and among the heathen, philosophic arguments,
apocalyptic visions, all were flung broadcast over minds unoccupied for
the most part by any rival learning.... As a mere literary monument, the
English version of the Bible remains the noblest example of the English
tongue." It was the King James version just from the press that the
Pilgrims brought across the sea with them.

For the authority of the Established Church was substituted the
authority of the Scriptures. The Puritans devised a catechism based upon
their interpretation of the Bible, and, very soon after their arrival in
America, they ordered all parents and masters of servants to be diligent
in seeing that their children and wards were taught to read religious
works and give answers to the religious questions. Massachusetts was
scarcely twenty years old before education of this character was
declared to be compulsory, and provision was made for public schools
where those not taught at home could receive instruction in reading and
writing.

[Illustration: A PAGE FROM A FAMOUS SCHOOLBOOK

A In ADAM'S Fall
We sinned all.

B Heaven to find,
The Bible Mind.

C Christ crucify'd
For sinners dy'd.

D The Deluge drown'd
The Earth around.

E ELIJAH hid
by Ravens fed.

F The judgment made
FELIX afraid.]

Outside of New England the idea of compulsory education was not regarded
with the same favor; but the whole land was nevertheless dotted with
little schools kept by "dames, itinerant teachers, or local parsons."
Whether we turn to the life of Franklin in the North or Washington in
the South, we read of tiny schoolhouses, where boys, and sometimes
girls, were taught to read and write. Where there were no schools,
fathers and mothers of the better kind gave their children the rudiments
of learning. Though illiteracy was widespread, there is evidence to show
that the diffusion of knowledge among the masses was making steady
progress all through the eighteenth century.

=Religion and Higher Learning.=--Religious motives entered into the
establishment of colleges as well as local schools. Harvard, founded in
1636, and Yale, opened in 1718, were intended primarily to train
"learned and godly ministers" for the Puritan churches of New England.
To the far North, Dartmouth, chartered in 1769, was designed first as a
mission to the Indians and then as a college for the sons of New England
farmers preparing to preach, teach, or practice law. The College of New
Jersey, organized in 1746 and removed to Princeton eleven years later,
was sustained by the Presbyterians. Two colleges looked to the
Established Church as their source of inspiration and support: William
and Mary, founded in Virginia in 1693, and King's College, now Columbia
University, chartered by King George II in 1754, on an appeal from the
New York Anglicans, alarmed at the growth of religious dissent and the
"republican tendencies" of the age. Two colleges revealed a drift away
from sectarianism. Brown, established in Rhode Island in 1764, and the
Philadelphia Academy, forerunner of the University of Pennsylvania,
organized by Benjamin Franklin, reflected the spirit of toleration by
giving representation on the board of trustees to several religious
sects. It was Franklin's idea that his college should prepare young men
to serve in public office as leaders of the people and ornaments to
their country.

=Self-education in America.=--Important as were these institutions of
learning, higher education was by no means confined within their walls.
Many well-to-do families sent their sons to Oxford or Cambridge in
England. Private tutoring in the home was common. In still more families
there were intelligent children who grew up in the great colonial school
of adversity and who trained themselves until, in every contest of mind
and wit, they could vie with the sons of Harvard or William and Mary or
any other college. Such, for example, was Benjamin Franklin, whose
charming autobiography, in addition to being an American classic, is a
fine record of self-education. His formal training in the classroom was
limited to a few years at a local school in Boston; but his
self-education continued throughout his life. He early manifested a zeal
for reading, and devoured, he tells us, his father's dry library on
theology, Bunyan's works, Defoe's writings, Plutarch's _Lives_, Locke's
_On the Human Understanding_, and innumerable volumes dealing with
secular subjects. His literary style, perhaps the best of his time,
Franklin acquired by the diligent and repeated analysis of the
_Spectator_. In a life crowded with labors, he found time to read widely
in natural science and to win single-handed recognition at the hands of
European savants for his discoveries in electricity. By his own efforts
he "attained an acquaintance" with Latin, Italian, French, and Spanish,
thus unconsciously preparing himself for the day when he was to speak
for all America at the court of the king of France.

Lesser lights than Franklin, educated by the same process, were found
all over colonial America. From this fruitful source of native ability,
self-educated, the American cause drew great strength in the trials of
the Revolution.

THE COLONIAL PRESS

=The Rise of the Newspaper.=--The evolution of American democracy into a
government by public opinion, enlightened by the open discussion of
political questions, was in no small measure aided by a free press. That
too, like education, was a matter of slow growth. A printing press was
brought to Massachusetts in 1639, but it was put in charge of an
official censor and limited to the publication of religious works. Forty
years elapsed before the first newspaper appeared, bearing the curious
title, _Public Occurrences Both Foreign and Domestic_, and it had not
been running very long before the government of Massachusetts suppressed
it for discussing a political question.

Publishing, indeed, seemed to be a precarious business; but in 1704
there came a second venture in journalism, _The Boston News-Letter_,
which proved to be a more lasting enterprise because it refrained from
criticizing the authorities. Still the public interest languished. When
Franklin's brother, James, began to issue his _New England Courant_
about 1720, his friends sought to dissuade him, saying that one
newspaper was enough for America. Nevertheless he continued it; and his
confidence in the future was rewarded. In nearly every colony a gazette
or chronicle appeared within the next thirty years or more. Benjamin
Franklin was able to record in 1771 that America had twenty-five
newspapers. Boston led with five. Philadelphia had three: two in English
and one in German.

=Censorship and Restraints on the Press.=--The idea of printing,
unlicensed by the government and uncontrolled by the church, was,
however, slow in taking form. The founders of the American colonies had
never known what it was to have the free and open publication of books,
pamphlets, broadsides, and newspapers. When the art of printing was
first discovered, the control of publishing was vested in clerical
authorities. After the establishment of the State Church in England in
the reign of Elizabeth, censorship of the press became a part of royal
prerogative. Printing was restricted to Oxford, Cambridge, and London;
and no one could publish anything without previous approval of the
official censor. When the Puritans were in power, the popular party,
with a zeal which rivaled that of the crown, sought, in turn, to silence
royalist and clerical writers by a vigorous censorship. After the
restoration of the monarchy, control of the press was once more placed
in royal hands, where it remained until 1695, when Parliament, by
failing to renew the licensing act, did away entirely with the official
censorship. By that time political parties were so powerful and so
active and printing presses were so numerous that official review of all
published matter became a sheer impossibility.

In America, likewise, some troublesome questions arose in connection
with freedom of the press. The Puritans of Massachusetts were no less
anxious than King Charles or the Archbishop of London to shut out from
the prying eyes of the people all literature "not mete for them to
read"; and so they established a system of official licensing for
presses, which lasted until 1755. In the other colonies where there was
more diversity of opinion and publishers could set up in business with
impunity, they were nevertheless constantly liable to arrest for
printing anything displeasing to the colonial governments. In 1721 the
editor of the _Mercury_ in Philadelphia was called before the
proprietary council and ordered to apologize for a political article,
and for a later offense of a similar character he was thrown into jail.
A still more famous case was that of Peter Zenger, a New York publisher,
who was arrested in 1735 for criticising the administration. Lawyers who
ventured to defend the unlucky editor were deprived of their licenses to
practice, and it became necessary to bring an attorney all the way from
Philadelphia. By this time the tension of feeling was high, and the
approbation of the public was forthcoming when the lawyer for the
defense exclaimed to the jury that the very cause of liberty itself, not
that of the poor printer, was on trial! The verdict for Zenger, when it
finally came, was the signal for an outburst of popular rejoicing.
Already the people of King George's province knew how precious a thing
is the freedom of the press.

Thanks to the schools, few and scattered as they were, and to the
vigilance of parents, a very large portion, perhaps nearly one-half, of
the colonists could read. Through the newspapers, pamphlets, and
almanacs that streamed from the types, the people could follow the
course of public events and grasp the significance of political
arguments. An American opinion was in the process of making--an
independent opinion nourished by the press and enriched by discussions
around the fireside and at the taverns. When the day of resistance to
British rule came, government by opinion was at hand. For every person
who could hear the voice of Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams, there were a
thousand who could see their appeals on the printed page. Men who had
spelled out their letters while poring over Franklin's _Poor Richard's
Almanac_ lived to read Thomas Paine's thrilling call to arms.

THE EVOLUTION IN POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS

Two very distinct lines of development appeared in colonial politics.
The one, exalting royal rights and aristocratic privileges, was the
drift toward provincial government through royal officers appointed in
England. The other, leading toward democracy and self-government, was
the growth in the power of the popular legislative assembly. Each
movement gave impetus to the other, with increasing force during the
passing years, until at last the final collision between the two ideals
of government came in the war of independence.

=The Royal Provinces.=--Of the thirteen English colonies eight were
royal provinces in 1776, with governors appointed by the king. Virginia
passed under the direct rule of the crown in 1624, when the charter of
the London Company was annulled. The Massachusetts Bay corporation lost
its charter in 1684, and the new instrument granted seven years later
stripped the colonists of the right to choose their chief executive. In
the early decades of the eighteenth century both the Carolinas were
given the provincial instead of the proprietary form. New Hampshire,
severed from Massachusetts in 1679, and Georgia, surrendered by the
trustees in 1752, went into the hands of the crown. New York,
transferred to the Duke of York on its capture from the Dutch in 1664,
became a province when he took the title of James II in 1685. New
Jersey, after remaining for nearly forty years under proprietors, was
brought directly under the king in 1702. Maryland, Pennsylvania, and
Delaware, although they retained their proprietary character until the
Revolution, were in some respects like the royal colonies, for their
governors were as independent of popular choice as were the appointees
of King George. Only two colonies, Rhode Island and Connecticut,
retained full self-government on the eve of the Revolution. They alone
had governors and legislatures entirely of their own choosing.

The chief officer of the royal province was the governor, who enjoyed
high and important powers which he naturally sought to augment at every
turn. He enforced the laws and, usually with the consent of a council,
appointed the civil and military officers. He granted pardons and
reprieves; he was head of the highest court; he was commander-in-chief
of the militia; he levied troops for defense and enforced martial law in
time of invasion, war, and rebellion. In all the provinces, except
Massachusetts, he named the councilors who composed the upper house of
the legislature and was likely to choose those who favored his claims.
He summoned, adjourned, and dissolved the popular assembly, or the lower
house; he laid before it the projects of law desired by the crown; and
he vetoed measures which he thought objectionable. Here were in America
all the elements of royal prerogative against which Hampden had
protested and Cromwell had battled in England.

[Illustration: THE ROYAL GOVERNOR'S PALACE AT NEW BERNE]

The colonial governors were generally surrounded by a body of
office-seekers and hunters for land grants. Some of them were noblemen
of broken estates who had come to America to improve their fortunes. The
pretensions of this circle grated on colonial nerves, and privileges
granted to them, often at the expense of colonists, did much to deepen
popular antipathy to the British government. Favors extended to
adherents of the Established Church displeased Dissenters. The
reappearance of this formidable union of church and state, from which
they had fled, stirred anew the ancient wrath against that combination.

=The Colonial Assembly.=--Coincident with the drift toward
administration through royal governors was the second and opposite
tendency, namely, a steady growth in the practice of self-government.
The voters of England had long been accustomed to share in taxation and
law-making through representatives in Parliament, and the idea was early
introduced in America. Virginia was only twelve years old (1619) when
its first representative assembly appeared. As the towns of
Massachusetts multiplied and it became impossible for all the members of
the corporation to meet at one place, the representative idea was
adopted, in 1633. The river towns of Connecticut formed a representative
system under their "Fundamental Orders" of 1639, and the entire colony
was given a royal charter in 1662. Generosity, as well as practical
considerations, induced such proprietors as Lord Baltimore and William
Penn to invite their colonists to share in the government as soon as any
considerable settlements were made. Thus by one process or another every
one of the colonies secured a popular assembly.

It is true that in the provision for popular elections, the suffrage was
finally restricted to property owners or taxpayers, with a leaning
toward the freehold qualification. In Virginia, the rural voter had to
be a freeholder owning at least fifty acres of land, if there was no
house on it, or twenty-five acres with a house twenty-five feet square.
In Massachusetts, the voter for member of the assembly under the charter
of 1691 had to be a freeholder of an estate worth forty shillings a year
at least or of other property to the value of forty pounds sterling. In
Pennsylvania, the suffrage was granted to freeholders owning fifty acres
or more of land well seated, twelve acres cleared, and to other persons
worth at least fifty pounds in lawful money.

Restrictions like these undoubtedly excluded from the suffrage a very
considerable number of men, particularly the mechanics and artisans of
the towns, who were by no means content with their position.
Nevertheless, it was relatively easy for any man to acquire a small
freehold, so cheap and abundant was land; and in fact a large proportion
of the colonists were land owners. Thus the assemblies, in spite of the
limited suffrage, acquired a democratic tone.

The popular character of the assemblies increased as they became engaged
in battles with the royal and proprietary governors. When called upon by
the executive to make provision for the support of the administration,
the legislature took advantage of the opportunity to make terms in the
interest of the taxpayers. It made annual, not permanent, grants of
money to pay official salaries and then insisted upon electing a
treasurer to dole it out. Thus the colonists learned some of the
mysteries of public finance, as well as the management of rapacious
officials. The legislature also used its power over money grants to
force the governor to sign bills which he would otherwise have vetoed.

=Contests between Legislatures and Governors.=--As may be imagined, many
and bitter were the contests between the royal and proprietary governors
and the colonial assemblies. Franklin relates an amusing story of how
the Pennsylvania assembly held in one hand a bill for the executive to
sign and, in the other hand, the money to pay his salary. Then, with sly
humor, Franklin adds: "Do not, my courteous reader, take pet at our
proprietary constitution for these our bargain and sale proceedings in
legislation. It is a happy country where justice and what was your own
before can be had for ready money. It is another addition to the value
of money and of course another spur to industry. Every land is not so
blessed."

It must not be thought, however, that every governor got off as easily
as Franklin's tale implies. On the contrary, the legislatures, like
Caesar, fed upon meat that made them great and steadily encroached upon
executive prerogatives as they tried out and found their strength. If
we may believe contemporary laments, the power of the crown in America
was diminishing when it was struck down altogether. In New York, the
friends of the governor complained in 1747 that "the inhabitants of
plantations are generally educated in republican principles; upon
republican principles all is conducted. Little more than a shadow of
royal authority remains in the Northern colonies." "Here," echoed the
governor of South Carolina, the following year, "levelling principles
prevail; the frame of the civil government is unhinged; a governor, if
he would be idolized, must betray his trust; the people have got their
whole administration in their hands; the election of the members of the
assembly is by ballot; not civil posts only, but all ecclesiastical
preferments, are in the disposal or election of the people."

Though baffled by the "levelling principles" of the colonial assemblies,
the governors did not give up the case as hopeless. Instead they evolved
a system of policy and action which they thought could bring the
obstinate provincials to terms. That system, traceable in their letters
to the government in London, consisted of three parts: (1) the royal
officers in the colonies were to be made independent of the legislatures
by taxes imposed by acts of Parliament; (2) a British standing army was
to be maintained in America; (3) the remaining colonial charters were to
be revoked and government by direct royal authority was to be enlarged.

Such a system seemed plausible enough to King George III and to many
ministers of the crown in London. With governors, courts, and an army
independent of the colonists, they imagined it would be easy to carry
out both royal orders and acts of Parliament. This reasoning seemed both
practical and logical. Nor was it founded on theory, for it came fresh
from the governors themselves. It was wanting in one respect only. It
failed to take account of the fact that the American people were growing
strong in the practice of self-government and could dispense with the
tutelage of the British ministry, no matter how excellent it might be or
how benevolent its intentions.

=References=

A.M. Earle, _Home Life in Colonial Days_.

A.L. Cross, _The Anglican Episcopate and the American Colonies_ (Harvard
Studies).

E.G. Dexter, _History of Education in the United States_.

C.A. Duniway, _Freedom of the Press in Massachusetts_.

Benjamin Franklin, _Autobiography_.

E.B. Greene, _The Provincial Governor_ (Harvard Studies).

A.E. McKinley, _The Suffrage Franchise in the Thirteen English Colonies_
(Pennsylvania University Studies).

M.C. Tyler, _History of American Literature during the Colonial Times_
(2 vols.).

=Questions=

1. Why is leisure necessary for the production of art and literature?
How may leisure be secured?

2. Explain the position of the church in colonial life.

3. Contrast the political roles of Puritanism and the Established
Church.

4. How did diversity of opinion work for toleration?

5. Show the connection between religion and learning in colonial times.

6. Why is a "free press" such an important thing to American democracy?

7. Relate some of the troubles of early American publishers.

8. Give the undemocratic features of provincial government.

9. How did the colonial assemblies help to create an independent
American spirit, in spite of a restricted suffrage?

10. Explain the nature of the contests between the governors and the
legislatures.

=Research Topics=

=Religious and Intellectual Life.=--Lodge, _Short History of the English
Colonies_: (1) in New England, pp. 418-438, 465-475; (2) in Virginia,
pp. 54-61, 87-89; (3) in Pennsylvania, pp. 232-237, 253-257; (4) in New
York, pp. 316-321. Interesting source materials in Hart, _American
History Told by Contemporaries_, Vol. II, pp. 255-275, 276-290.

=The Government of a Royal Province, Virginia.=--Lodge, pp. 43-50.
Special Reference: E.B. Greene, _The Provincial Governor_ (Harvard
Studies).

=The Government of a Proprietary Colony, Pennsylvania.=--Lodge, pp.
230-232.

=Government in New England.=--Lodge, pp. 412-417.

=The Colonial Press.=--Special Reference: G.H. Payne, _History of
Journalism in the United States_ (1920).

=Colonial Life in General.=--John Fiske, _Old Virginia and Her
Neighbors_, Vol. II, pp. 174-269; Elson, _History of the United States_,
pp. 197-210.

=Colonial Government in General.=--Elson, pp. 210-216.

CHAPTER IV

THE DEVELOPMENT OF COLONIAL NATIONALISM

It is one of the well-known facts of history that a people loosely
united by domestic ties of a political and economic nature, even a
people torn by domestic strife, may be welded into a solid and compact
body by an attack from a foreign power. The imperative call to common
defense, the habit of sharing common burdens, the fusing force of common
service--these things, induced by the necessity of resisting outside
interference, act as an amalgam drawing together all elements, except,
perhaps, the most discordant. The presence of the enemy allays the most
virulent of quarrels, temporarily at least. "Politics," runs an old
saying, "stops at the water's edge."

This ancient political principle, so well understood in diplomatic
circles, applied nearly as well to the original thirteen American
colonies as to the countries of Europe. The necessity for common
defense, if not equally great, was certainly always pressing. Though it
has long been the practice to speak of the early settlements as founded
in "a wilderness," this was not actually the case. From the earliest
days of Jamestown on through the years, the American people were
confronted by dangers from without. All about their tiny settlements
were Indians, growing more and more hostile as the frontier advanced and
as sharp conflicts over land aroused angry passions. To the south and
west was the power of Spain, humiliated, it is true, by the disaster to
the Armada, but still presenting an imposing front to the British
empire. To the north and west were the French, ambitious, energetic,
imperial in temper, and prepared to contest on land and water the
advance of British dominion in America.

RELATIONS WITH THE INDIANS AND THE FRENCH

=Indian Affairs.=--It is difficult to make general statements about the
relations of the colonists to the Indians. The problem was presented in
different shape in different sections of America. It was not handled
according to any coherent or uniform plan by the British government,
which alone could speak for all the provinces at the same time. Neither
did the proprietors and the governors who succeeded one another, in an
irregular train, have the consistent policy or the matured experience
necessary for dealing wisely with Indian matters. As the difficulties
arose mainly on the frontiers, where the restless and pushing pioneers
were making their way with gun and ax, nearly everything that happened
was the result of chance rather than of calculation. A personal quarrel
between traders and an Indian, a jug of whisky, a keg of gunpowder, the
exchange of guns for furs, personal treachery, or a flash of bad temper
often set in motion destructive forces of the most terrible character.

On one side of the ledger may be set innumerable generous records--of
Squanto and Samoset teaching the Pilgrims the ways of the wilds; of
Roger Williams buying his lands from the friendly natives; or of William
Penn treating with them on his arrival in America. On the other side of
the ledger must be recorded many a cruel and bloody conflict as the
frontier rolled westward with deadly precision. The Pequots on the
Connecticut border, sensing their doom, fell upon the tiny settlements
with awful fury in 1637 only to meet with equally terrible punishment. A
generation later, King Philip, son of Massasoit, the friend of the
Pilgrims, called his tribesmen to a war of extermination which brought
the strength of all New England to the field and ended in his own
destruction. In New York, the relations with the Indians, especially
with the Algonquins and the Mohawks, were marked by periodic and
desperate wars. Virginia and her Southern neighbors suffered as did New
England. In 1622 Opecacano, a brother of Powhatan, the friend of the
Jamestown settlers, launched a general massacre; and in 1644 he
attempted a war of extermination. In 1675 the whole frontier was ablaze.
Nathaniel Bacon vainly attempted to stir the colonial governor to put up
an adequate defense and, failing in that plea, himself headed a revolt
and a successful expedition against the Indians. As the Virginia
outposts advanced into the Kentucky country, the strife with the natives
was transferred to that "dark and bloody ground"; while to the
southeast, a desperate struggle with the Tuscaroras called forth the
combined forces of the two Carolinas and Virginia.

[Illustration: _From an old print._

VIRGINIANS DEFENDING THEMSELVES AGAINST THE INDIANS]

From such horrors New Jersey and Delaware were saved on account of their
geographical location. Pennsylvania, consistently following a policy of
conciliation, was likewise spared until her western vanguard came into
full conflict with the allied French and Indians. Georgia, by clever
negotiations and treaties of alliance, managed to keep on fair terms
with her belligerent Cherokees and Creeks. But neither diplomacy nor
generosity could stay the inevitable conflict as the frontier advanced,
especially after the French soldiers enlisted the Indians in their
imperial enterprises. It was then that desultory fighting became general
warfare.

[Illustration: ENGLISH, FRENCH, AND SPANISH POSSESSIONS IN AMERICA,
1750]

=Early Relations with the French.=--During the first decades of French
exploration and settlement in the St. Lawrence country, the English
colonies, engrossed with their own problems, gave little or no thought
to their distant neighbors. Quebec, founded in 1608, and Montreal, in
1642, were too far away, too small in population, and too slight in
strength to be much of a menace to Boston, Hartford, or New York. It was
the statesmen in France and England, rather than the colonists in
America, who first grasped the significance of the slowly converging
empires in North America. It was the ambition of Louis XIV of France,
rather than the labors of Jesuit missionaries and French rangers, that
sounded the first note of colonial alarm.

Evidence of this lies in the fact that three conflicts between the
English and the French occurred before their advancing frontiers met on
the Pennsylvania border. King William's War (1689-1697), Queen Anne's
War (1701-1713), and King George's War (1744-1748) owed their origins
and their endings mainly to the intrigues and rivalries of European
powers, although they all involved the American colonies in struggles
with the French and their savage allies.

=The Clash in the Ohio Valley.=--The second of these wars had hardly
closed, however, before the English colonists themselves began to be
seriously alarmed about the rapidly expanding French dominion in the
West. Marquette and Joliet, who opened the Lake region, and La Salle,
who in 1682 had gone down the Mississippi to the Gulf, had been followed
by the builders of forts. In 1718, the French founded New Orleans, thus
taking possession of the gateway to the Mississippi as well as the St.
Lawrence. A few years later they built Fort Niagara; in 1731 they
occupied Crown Point; in 1749 they formally announced their dominion
over all the territory drained by the Ohio River. Having asserted this
lofty claim, they set out to make it good by constructing in the years
1752-1754 Fort Le Boeuf near Lake Erie, Fort Venango on the upper
waters of the Allegheny, and Fort Duquesne at the junction of the
streams forming the Ohio. Though they were warned by George Washington,
in the name of the governor of Virginia, to keep out of territory "so
notoriously known to be property of the crown of Great Britain," the
French showed no signs of relinquishing their pretensions.

[Illustration: _From an old print_

BRADDOCK'S RETREAT]

=The Final Phase--the French and Indian War.=--Thus it happened that the
shot which opened the Seven Years' War, known in America as the French
and Indian War, was fired in the wilds of Pennsylvania. There began the
conflict that spread to Europe and even Asia and finally involved
England and Prussia, on the one side, and France, Austria, Spain, and
minor powers on the other. On American soil, the defeat of Braddock in
1755 and Wolfe's exploit in capturing Quebec four years later were the
dramatic features. On the continent of Europe, England subsidized
Prussian arms to hold France at bay. In India, on the banks of the
Ganges, as on the banks of the St. Lawrence, British arms were
triumphant. Well could the historian write: "Conquests equaling in
rapidity and far surpassing in magnitude those of Cortes and Pizarro had
been achieved in the East." Well could the merchants of London declare
that under the administration of William Pitt, the imperial genius of
this world-wide conflict, commerce had been "united with and made to
flourish by war."

From the point of view of the British empire, the results of the war
were momentous. By the peace of 1763, Canada and the territory east of
the Mississippi, except New Orleans, passed under the British flag. The
remainder of the Louisiana territory was transferred to Spain and French
imperial ambitions on the American continent were laid to rest. In
exchange for Havana, which the British had seized during the war, Spain
ceded to King George the colony of Florida. Not without warrant did
Macaulay write in after years that Pitt "was the first Englishman of his
time; and he had made England the first country in the world."

THE EFFECTS OF WARFARE ON THE COLONIES

The various wars with the French and the Indians, trivial in detail as
they seem to-day, had a profound influence on colonial life and on the
destiny of America. Circumstances beyond the control of popular
assemblies, jealous of their individual powers, compelled cooeperation
among them, grudging and stingy no doubt, but still cooeperation. The
American people, more eager to be busy in their fields or at their
trades, were simply forced to raise and support armies, to learn the
arts of warfare, and to practice, if in a small theater, the science of
statecraft. These forces, all cumulative, drove the colonists, so
tenaciously provincial in their habits, in the direction of nationalism.

=The New England Confederation.=--It was in their efforts to deal with
the problems presented by the Indian and French menace that the
Americans took the first steps toward union. Though there were many
common ties among the settlers of New England, it required a deadly
fear of the Indians to produce in 1643 the New England Confederation,
composed of Massachusetts, Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven. The
colonies so united were bound together in "a firm and perpetual league
of friendship and amity for offense and defense, mutual service and
succor, upon all just occasions." They made provision for distributing
the burdens of wars among the members and provided for a congress of
commissioners from each colony to determine upon common policies. For
some twenty years the Confederation was active and it continued to hold
meetings until after the extinction of the Indian peril on the immediate
border.

Virginia, no less than Massachusetts, was aware of the importance of
intercolonial cooeperation. In the middle of the seventeenth century, the
Old Dominion began treaties of commerce and amity with New York and the
colonies of New England. In 1684 delegates from Virginia met at Albany
with the agents of New York and Massachusetts to discuss problems of
mutual defense. A few years later the Old Dominion cooeperated loyally
with the Carolinas in defending their borders against Indian forays.

=The Albany Plan of Union.=--An attempt at a general colonial union was
made in 1754. On the suggestion of the Lords of Trade in England, a
conference was held at Albany to consider Indian relations, to devise
measures of defense against the French, and to enter into "articles of
union and confederation for the general defense of his Majesty's
subjects and interests in North America as well in time of peace as of
war." New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York,
Pennsylvania, and Maryland were represented. After a long discussion, a
plan of union, drafted mainly, it seems, by Benjamin Franklin, was
adopted and sent to the colonies and the crown for approval. The
colonies, jealous of their individual rights, refused to accept the
scheme and the king disapproved it for the reason, Franklin said, that
it had "too much weight in the democratic part of the constitution."
Though the Albany union failed, the document is still worthy of study
because it forecast many of the perplexing problems that were not solved
until thirty-three years afterward, when another convention of which
also Franklin was a member drafted the Constitution of the United
States.

[Illustration: BENJAMIN FRANKLIN]

=The Military Education of the Colonists.=--The same wars that showed
the provincials the meaning of union likewise instructed them in the art
of defending their institutions. Particularly was this true of the last
French and Indian conflict, which stretched all the way from Maine to
the Carolinas and made heavy calls upon them all for troops. The answer,
it is admitted, was far from satisfactory to the British government and
the conduct of the militiamen was far from professional; but thousands
of Americans got a taste, a strong taste, of actual fighting in the
field. Men like George Washington and Daniel Morgan learned lessons that
were not forgotten in after years. They saw what American militiamen
could do under favorable circumstances and they watched British regulars
operating on American soil. "This whole transaction," shrewdly remarked
Franklin of Braddock's campaign, "gave us Americans the first suspicion
that our exalted ideas of the prowess of British regular troops had not
been well founded." It was no mere accident that the Virginia colonel
who drew his sword under the elm at Cambridge and took command of the
army of the Revolution was the brave officer who had "spurned the
whistle of bullets" at the memorable battle in western Pennsylvania.

=Financial Burdens and Commercial Disorder.=--While the provincials were
learning lessons in warfare they were also paying the bills. All the
conflicts were costly in treasure as in blood. King Philip's war left
New England weak and almost bankrupt. The French and Indian struggle was
especially expensive. The twenty-five thousand men put in the field by
the colonies were sustained only by huge outlays of money. Paper
currency streamed from the press and debts were accumulated. Commerce
was driven from its usual channels and prices were enhanced. When the
end came, both England and America were staggering under heavy
liabilities, and to make matters worse there was a fall of prices
accompanied by a commercial depression which extended over a period of
ten years. It was in the midst of this crisis that measures of taxation
had to be devised to pay the cost of the war, precipitating the quarrel
which led to American independence.

=The Expulsion of French Power from North America.=--The effects of the
defeat administered to France, as time proved, were difficult to
estimate. Some British statesmen regarded it as a happy circumstance
that the colonists, already restive under their administration, had no
foreign power at hand to aid them in case they struck for independence.
American leaders, on the other hand, now that the soldiers of King Louis
were driven from the continent, thought that they had no other country
to fear if they cast off British sovereignty. At all events, France,
though defeated, was not out of the sphere of American influence; for,
as events proved, it was the fortunate French alliance negotiated by
Franklin that assured the triumph of American arms in the War of the
Revolution.

COLONIAL RELATIONS WITH THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT

It was neither the Indian wars nor the French wars that finally brought
forth American nationality. That was the product of the long strife
with the mother country which culminated in union for the war of
independence. The forces that created this nation did not operate in the
colonies alone. The character of the English sovereigns, the course of
events in English domestic politics, and English measures of control
over the colonies--executive, legislative, and judicial--must all be
taken into account.

=The Last of the Stuarts.=--The struggles between Charles I (1625-49)
and the parliamentary party and the turmoil of the Puritan regime
(1649-60) so engrossed the attention of Englishmen at home that they had
little time to think of colonial policies or to interfere with colonial
affairs. The restoration of the monarchy in 1660, accompanied by
internal peace and the increasing power of the mercantile classes in the
House of Commons, changed all that. In the reign of Charles II
(1660-85), himself an easy-going person, the policy of regulating trade
by act of Parliament was developed into a closely knit system and
powerful agencies to supervise the colonies were created. At the same
time a system of stricter control over the dominions was ushered in by
the annulment of the old charter of Massachusetts which conferred so
much self-government on the Puritans.

Charles' successor, James II, a man of sterner stuff and jealous of his
authority in the colonies as well as at home, continued the policy thus
inaugurated and enlarged upon it. If he could have kept his throne, he
would have bent the Americans under a harsh rule or brought on in his
dominions a revolution like that which he precipitated at home in 1688.
He determined to unite the Northern colonies and introduce a more
efficient administration based on the pattern of the royal provinces. He
made a martinet, Sir Edmund Andros, governor of all New England, New
York, and New Jersey. The charter of Massachusetts, annulled in the last
days of his brother's reign, he continued to ignore, and that of
Connecticut would have been seized if it had not been spirited away and
hidden, according to tradition, in a hollow oak.

For several months, Andros gave the Northern colonies a taste of
ill-tempered despotism. He wrung quit rents from land owners not
accustomed to feudal dues; he abrogated titles to land where, in his
opinion, they were unlawful; he forced the Episcopal service upon the
Old South Church in Boston; and he denied the writ of _habeas corpus_ to
a preacher who denounced taxation without representation. In the middle
of his arbitrary course, however, his hand was stayed. The news came
that King James had been dethroned by his angry subjects, and the people
of Boston, kindling a fire on Beacon Hill, summoned the countryside to
dispose of Andros. The response was prompt and hearty. The hated
governor was arrested, imprisoned, and sent back across the sea under
guard.

The overthrow of James, followed by the accession of William and Mary
and by assured parliamentary supremacy, had an immediate effect in the
colonies. The new order was greeted with thanksgiving. Massachusetts was
given another charter which, though not so liberal as the first,
restored the spirit if not the entire letter of self-government. In the
other colonies where Andros had been operating, the old course of
affairs was resumed.

=The Indifference of the First Two Georges.=--On the death in 1714 of
Queen Anne, the successor of King William, the throne passed to a
Hanoverian prince who, though grateful for English honors and revenues,
was more interested in Hanover than in England. George I and George II,
whose combined reigns extended from 1714 to 1760, never even learned to
speak the English language, at least without an accent. The necessity of
taking thought about colonial affairs bored both of them so that the
stoutest defender of popular privileges in Boston or Charleston had no
ground to complain of the exercise of personal prerogatives by the king.
Moreover, during a large part of this period, the direction of affairs
was in the hands of an astute leader, Sir Robert Walpole, who betrayed
his somewhat cynical view of politics by adopting as his motto: "Let
sleeping dogs lie." He revealed his appreciation of popular sentiment
by exclaiming: "I will not be the minister to enforce taxes at the
expense of blood." Such kings and such ministers were not likely to
arouse the slumbering resistance of the thirteen colonies across the
sea.

=Control of the Crown over the Colonies.=--While no English ruler from
James II to George III ventured to interfere with colonial matters
personally, constant control over the colonies was exercised by royal
officers acting under the authority of the crown. Systematic supervision
began in 1660, when there was created by royal order a committee of the
king's council to meet on Mondays and Thursdays of each week to consider
petitions, memorials, and addresses respecting the plantations. In 1696
a regular board was established, known as the "Lords of Trade and
Plantations," which continued, until the American Revolution, to
scrutinize closely colonial business. The chief duties of the board were
to examine acts of colonial legislatures, to recommend measures to those
assemblies for adoption, and to hear memorials and petitions from the
colonies relative to their affairs.

The methods employed by this board were varied. All laws passed by
American legislatures came before it for review as a matter of routine.
If it found an act unsatisfactory, it recommended to the king the
exercise of his veto power, known as the royal disallowance. Any person
who believed his personal or property rights injured by a colonial law
could be heard by the board in person or by attorney; in such cases it
was the practice to hear at the same time the agent of the colony so
involved. The royal veto power over colonial legislation was not,
therefore, a formal affair, but was constantly employed on the
suggestion of a highly efficient agency of the crown. All this was in
addition to the powers exercised by the governors in the royal
provinces.

=Judicial Control.=--Supplementing this administrative control over the
colonies was a constant supervision by the English courts of law. The
king, by virtue of his inherent authority, claimed and exercised high
appellate powers over all judicial tribunals in the empire. The right
of appeal from local courts, expressly set forth in some charters, was,
on the eve of the Revolution, maintained in every colony. Any subject in
England or America, who, in the regular legal course, was aggrieved by
any act of a colonial legislature or any decision of a colonial court,
had the right, subject to certain regulations, to carry his case to the
king in council, forcing his opponent to follow him across the sea. In
the exercise of appellate power, the king in council acting as a court
could, and frequently did, declare acts of colonial legislatures duly
enacted and approved, null and void, on the ground that they were
contrary to English law.

=Imperial Control in Operation.=--Day after day, week after week, year
after year, the machinery for political and judicial control over
colonial affairs was in operation. At one time the British governors in
the colonies were ordered not to approve any colonial law imposing a
duty on European goods imported in English vessels. Again, when North
Carolina laid a tax on peddlers, the council objected to it as
"restrictive upon the trade and dispersion of English manufactures
throughout the continent." At other times, Indian trade was regulated in
the interests of the whole empire or grants of lands by a colonial
legislature were set aside. Virginia was forbidden to close her ports to
North Carolina lest there should be retaliation.

In short, foreign and intercolonial trade were subjected to a control
higher than that of the colony, foreshadowing a day when the
Constitution of the United States was to commit to Congress the power to
regulate interstate and foreign commerce and commerce with the Indians.
A superior judicial power, towering above that of the colonies, as the
Supreme Court at Washington now towers above the states, kept the
colonial legislatures within the metes and bounds of established law. In
the thousands of appeals, memorials, petitions, and complaints, and the
rulings and decisions upon them, were written the real history of
British imperial control over the American colonies.

So great was the business before the Lords of Trade that the colonies
had to keep skilled agents in London to protect their interests. As
common grievances against the operation of this machinery of control
arose, there appeared in each colony a considerable body of men, with
the merchants in the lead, who chafed at the restraints imposed on their
enterprise. Only a powerful blow was needed to weld these bodies into a
common mass nourishing the spirit of colonial nationalism. When to the
repeated minor irritations were added general and sweeping measures of
Parliament applying to every colony, the rebound came in the Revolution.

=Parliamentary Control over Colonial Affairs.=--As soon as Parliament
gained in power at the expense of the king, it reached out to bring the
American colonies under its sway as well. Between the execution of
Charles I and the accession of George III, there was enacted an immense
body of legislation regulating the shipping, trade, and manufactures of
America. All of it, based on the "mercantile" theory then prevalent in
all countries of Europe, was designed to control the overseas
plantations in such a way as to foster the commercial and business
interests of the mother country, where merchants and men of finance had
got the upper hand. According to this theory, the colonies of the
British empire should be confined to agriculture and the production of
raw materials, and forced to buy their manufactured goods of England.

_The Navigation Acts._--In the first rank among these measures of
British colonial policy must be placed the navigation laws framed for
the purpose of building up the British merchant marine and navy--arms so
essential in defending the colonies against the Spanish, Dutch, and
French. The beginning of this type of legislation was made in 1651 and
it was worked out into a system early in the reign of Charles II
(1660-85).

The Navigation Acts, in effect, gave a monopoly of colonial commerce to
British ships. No trade could be carried on between Great Britain and
her dominions save in vessels built and manned by British subjects. No
European goods could be brought to America save in the ships of the
country that produced them or in English ships. These laws, which were
almost fatal to Dutch shipping in America, fell with severity upon the
colonists, compelling them to pay higher freight rates. The adverse
effect, however, was short-lived, for the measures stimulated
shipbuilding in the colonies, where the abundance of raw materials gave
the master builders of America an advantage over those of the mother
country. Thus the colonists in the end profited from the restrictive
policy written into the Navigation Acts.

_The Acts against Manufactures._--The second group of laws was
deliberately aimed to prevent colonial industries from competing too
sharply with those of England. Among the earliest of these measures may
be counted the Woolen Act of 1699, forbidding the exportation of woolen
goods from the colonies and even the woolen trade between towns and
colonies. When Parliament learned, as the result of an inquiry, that New
England and New York were making thousands of hats a year and sending
large numbers annually to the Southern colonies and to Ireland, Spain,
and Portugal, it enacted in 1732 a law declaring that "no hats or felts,
dyed or undyed, finished or unfinished" should be "put upon any vessel
or laden upon any horse or cart with intent to export to any place
whatever." The effect of this measure upon the hat industry was almost
ruinous. A few years later a similar blow was given to the iron
industry. By an act of 1750, pig and bar iron from the colonies were
given free entry to England to encourage the production of the raw
material; but at the same time the law provided that "no mill or other
engine for slitting or rolling of iron, no plating forge to work with a
tilt hammer, and no furnace for making steel" should be built in the
colonies. As for those already built, they were declared public
nuisances and ordered closed. Thus three important economic interests of
the colonists, the woolen, hat, and iron industries, were laid under the
ban.

_The Trade Laws._--The third group of restrictive measures passed by the
British Parliament related to the sale of colonial produce. An act of
1663 required the colonies to export certain articles to Great Britain
or to her dominions alone; while sugar, tobacco, and ginger consigned to
the continent of Europe had to pass through a British port paying custom
duties and through a British merchant's hands paying the usual
commission. At first tobacco was the only one of the "enumerated
articles" which seriously concerned the American colonies, the rest
coming mainly from the British West Indies. In the course of time,
however, other commodities were added to the list of enumerated
articles, until by 1764 it embraced rice, naval stores, copper, furs,
hides, iron, lumber, and pearl ashes. This was not all. The colonies
were compelled to bring their European purchases back through English
ports, paying duties to the government and commissions to merchants
again.

_The Molasses Act._--Not content with laws enacted in the interest of
English merchants and manufacturers, Parliament sought to protect the
British West Indies against competition from their French and Dutch
neighbors. New England merchants had long carried on a lucrative trade
with the French islands in the West Indies and Dutch Guiana, where sugar
and molasses could be obtained in large quantities at low prices. Acting
on the protests of English planters in the Barbadoes and Jamaica,
Parliament, in 1733, passed the famous Molasses Act imposing duties on
sugar and molasses imported into the colonies from foreign
countries--rates which would have destroyed the American trade with the
French and Dutch if the law had been enforced. The duties, however, were
not collected. The molasses and sugar trade with the foreigners went on
merrily, smuggling taking the place of lawful traffic.

=Effect of the Laws in America.=--As compared with the strict monopoly
of her colonial trade which Spain consistently sought to maintain, the
policy of England was both moderate and liberal. Furthermore, the
restrictive laws were supplemented by many measures intended to be
favorable to colonial prosperity. The Navigation Acts, for example,
redounded to the advantage of American shipbuilders and the producers
of hemp, tar, lumber, and ship stores in general. Favors in British
ports were granted to colonial producers as against foreign competitors
and in some instances bounties were paid by England to encourage
colonial enterprise. Taken all in all, there is much justification in
the argument advanced by some modern scholars to the effect that the
colonists gained more than they lost by British trade and industrial
legislation. Certainly after the establishment of independence, when
free from these old restrictions, the Americans found themselves
handicapped by being treated as foreigners rather than favored traders
and the recipients of bounties in English markets.

Be that as it may, it appears that the colonists felt little irritation
against the mother country on account of the trade and navigation laws
enacted previous to the close of the French and Indian war. Relatively
few were engaged in the hat and iron industries as compared with those
in farming and planting, so that England's policy of restricting America
to agriculture did not conflict with the interests of the majority of
the inhabitants. The woolen industry was largely in the hands of women
and carried on in connection with their domestic duties, so that it was
not the sole support of any considerable number of people.

As a matter of fact, moreover, the restrictive laws, especially those
relating to trade, were not rigidly enforced. Cargoes of tobacco were
boldly sent to continental ports without even so much as a bow to the
English government, to which duties should have been paid. Sugar and
molasses from the French and Dutch colonies were shipped into New
England in spite of the law. Royal officers sometimes protested against
smuggling and sometimes connived at it; but at no time did they succeed
in stopping it. Taken all in all, very little was heard of "the galling
restraints of trade" until after the French war, when the British
government suddenly entered upon a new course.

SUMMARY OF THE COLONIAL PERIOD

In the period between the landing of the English at Jamestown, Virginia,
in 1607, and the close of the French and Indian war in 1763--a period of
a century and a half--a new nation was being prepared on this continent
to take its place among the powers of the earth. It was an epoch of
migration. Western Europe contributed emigrants of many races and
nationalities. The English led the way. Next to them in numerical
importance were the Scotch-Irish and the Germans. Into the melting pot
were also cast Dutch, Swedes, French, Jews, Welsh, and Irish. Thousands
of negroes were brought from Africa to till Southern fields or labor as
domestic servants in the North.

Why did they come? The reasons are various. Some of them, the Pilgrims
and Puritans of New England, the French Huguenots, Scotch-Irish and
Irish, and the Catholics of Maryland, fled from intolerant governments
that denied them the right to worship God according to the dictates of
their consciences. Thousands came to escape the bondage of poverty in
the Old World and to find free homes in America. Thousands, like the
negroes from Africa, were dragged here against their will. The lure of
adventure appealed to the restless and the lure of profits to the
enterprising merchants.

How did they come? In some cases religious brotherhoods banded together
and borrowed or furnished the funds necessary to pay the way. In other
cases great trading companies were organized to found colonies. Again it
was the wealthy proprietor, like Lord Baltimore or William Penn, who
undertook to plant settlements. Many immigrants were able to pay their
own way across the sea. Others bound themselves out for a term of years
in exchange for the cost of the passage. Negroes were brought on account
of the profits derived from their sale as slaves.

Whatever the motive for their coming, however, they managed to get
across the sea. The immigrants set to work with a will. They cut down
forests, built houses, and laid out fields. They founded churches,
schools, and colleges. They set up forges and workshops. They spun and
wove. They fashioned ships and sailed the seas. They bartered and
traded. Here and there on favorable harbors they established centers of
commerce--Boston, Providence, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and
Charleston. As soon as a firm foothold was secured on the shore line
they pressed westward until, by the close of the colonial period, they
were already on the crest of the Alleghanies.

Though they were widely scattered along a thousand miles of seacoast,
the colonists were united in spirit by many common ties. The major
portion of them were Protestants. The language, the law, and the
literature of England furnished the basis of national unity. Most of the
colonists were engaged in the same hard task; that of conquering a
wilderness. To ties of kinship and language were added ties created by
necessity. They had to unite in defense; first, against the Indians and
later against the French. They were all subjects of the same
sovereign--the king of England. The English Parliament made laws for
them and the English government supervised their local affairs, their
trade, and their manufactures. Common forces assailed them. Common
grievances vexed them. Common hopes inspired them.

Many of the things which tended to unite them likewise tended to throw
them into opposition to the British Crown and Parliament. Most of them
were freeholders; that is, farmers who owned their own land and tilled
it with their own hands. A free soil nourished the spirit of freedom.
The majority of them were Dissenters, critics, not friends, of the
Church of England, that stanch defender of the British monarchy. Each
colony in time developed its own legislature elected by the voters; it
grew accustomed to making laws and laying taxes for itself. Here was a
people learning self-reliance and self-government. The attempts to
strengthen the Church of England in America and the transformation of
colonies into royal provinces only fanned the spirit of independence
which they were designed to quench.

Nevertheless, the Americans owed much of their prosperity to the
assistance of the government that irritated them. It was the protection
of the British navy that prevented Holland, Spain, and France from
wiping out their settlements. Though their manufacture and trade were
controlled in the interests of the mother country, they also enjoyed
great advantages in her markets. Free trade existed nowhere upon the
earth; but the broad empire of Britain was open to American ships and
merchandise. It could be said, with good reason, that the disadvantages
which the colonists suffered through British regulation of their
industry and trade were more than offset by the privileges they enjoyed.
Still that is somewhat beside the point, for mere economic advantage is
not necessarily the determining factor in the fate of peoples. A
thousand circumstances had helped to develop on this continent a nation,
to inspire it with a passion for independence, and to prepare it for a
destiny greater than that of a prosperous dominion of the British
empire. The economists, who tried to prove by logic unassailable that
America would be richer under the British flag, could not change the
spirit of Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, or George
Washington.

=References=

G.L. Beer, _Origin of the British Colonial System_ and _The Old Colonial
System_.

A. Bradley, _The Fight for Canada in North America_.

C.M. Andrews, _Colonial Self-Government_ (American Nation Series).

H. Egerton, _Short History of British Colonial Policy_.

F. Parkman, _France and England in North America_ (12 vols.).

R. Thwaites, _France in America_ (American Nation Series).

J. Winsor, _The Mississippi Valley_ and _Cartier to Frontenac_.

=Questions=

1. How would you define "nationalism"?

2. Can you give any illustrations of the way that war promotes
nationalism?

3. Why was it impossible to establish and maintain a uniform policy in
dealing with the Indians?

4. What was the outcome of the final clash with the French?

5. Enumerate the five chief results of the wars with the French and the
Indians. Discuss each in detail.

6. Explain why it was that the character of the English king mattered to
the colonists.

7. Contrast England under the Stuarts with England under the
Hanoverians.

8. Explain how the English Crown, Courts, and Parliament controlled the
colonies.

9. Name the three important classes of English legislation affecting the
colonies. Explain each.

10. Do you think the English legislation was beneficial or injurious to
the colonies? Why?

=Research Topics=

=Rise of French Power in North America.=--Special reference: Francis
Parkman, _Struggle for a Continent_.

=The French and Indian Wars.=--Special reference: W.M. Sloane, _French
War and the Revolution_, Chaps. VI-IX. Parkman, _Montcalm and Wolfe_,
Vol. II, pp. 195-299. Elson, _History of the United States_, pp.
171-196.

=English Navigation Acts.=--Macdonald, _Documentary Source Book_, pp.
55, 72, 78, 90, 103. Coman, _Industrial History_, pp. 79-85.

=British Colonial Policy.=--Callender, _Economic History of the United
States_, pp. 102-108.

=The New England Confederation.=--Analyze the document in Macdonald,
_Source Book_, p. 45. Special reference: Fiske, _Beginnings of New
England_, pp. 140-198.

=The Administration of Andros.=--Fiske, _Beginnings_, pp. 242-278.

=Biographical Studies.=--William Pitt and Sir Robert Walpole. Consult
Green, _Short History of England_, on their policies, using the index.

PART II. CONFLICT AND INDEPENDENCE

CHAPTER V

THE NEW COURSE IN BRITISH IMPERIAL POLICY

On October 25, 1760, King George II died and the British crown passed to
his young grandson. The first George, the son of the Elector of Hanover
and Sophia the granddaughter of James I, was a thorough German who never
even learned to speak the language of the land over which he reigned.
The second George never saw England until he was a man. He spoke English
with an accent and until his death preferred his German home. During
their reign, the principle had become well established that the king did
not govern but acted only through ministers representing the majority in
Parliament.

GEORGE III AND HIS SYSTEM

=The Character of the New King.=--The third George rudely broke the
German tradition of his family. He resented the imputation that he was a
foreigner and on all occasions made a display of his British sympathies.
To the draft of his first speech to Parliament, he added the popular
phrase: "Born and educated in this country, I glory in the name of
Briton." Macaulay, the English historian, certainly of no liking for
high royal prerogative, said of George: "The young king was a born
Englishman. All his tastes and habits, good and bad, were English. No
portion of his subjects had anything to reproach him with.... His age,
his appearance, and all that was known of his character conciliated
public favor. He was in the bloom of youth; his person and address were
pleasing; scandal imputed to him no vice; and flattery might without
glaring absurdity ascribe to him many princely virtues."

Nevertheless George III had been spoiled by his mother, his tutors, and
his courtiers. Under their influence he developed high and mighty
notions about the sacredness of royal authority and his duty to check
the pretensions of Parliament and the ministers dependent upon it. His
mother had dinned into his ears the slogan: "George, be king!" Lord
Bute, his teacher and adviser, had told him that his honor required him
to take an active part in the shaping of public policy and the making of
laws. Thus educated, he surrounded himself with courtiers who encouraged
him in the determination to rule as well as reign, to subdue all
parties, and to place himself at the head of the nation and empire.

[Illustration: _From an old print._

GEORGE III]

=Political Parties and George III.=--The state of the political parties
favored the plans of the king to restore some of the ancient luster of
the crown. The Whigs, who were composed mainly of the smaller
freeholders, merchants, inhabitants of towns, and Protestant
non-conformists, had grown haughty and overbearing through long
continuance in power and had as a consequence raised up many enemies in
their own ranks. Their opponents, the Tories, had by this time given up
all hope of restoring to the throne the direct Stuart line; but they
still cherished their old notions about divine right. With the
accession of George III the coveted opportunity came to them to rally
around the throne again. George received his Tory friends with open
arms, gave them offices, and bought them seats in the House of Commons.

=The British Parliamentary System.=--The peculiarities of the British
Parliament at the time made smooth the way for the king and his allies
with their designs for controlling the entire government. In the first
place, the House of Lords was composed mainly of hereditary nobles whose
number the king could increase by the appointment of his favorites, as
of old. Though the members of the House of Commons were elected by
popular vote, they did not speak for the mass of English people. Great
towns like Leeds, Manchester, and Birmingham, for example, had no
representatives at all. While there were about eight million inhabitants
in Great Britain, there were in 1768 only about 160,000 voters; that is
to say, only about one in every ten adult males had a voice in the
government. Many boroughs returned one or more members to the Commons
although they had merely a handful of voters or in some instances no
voters at all. Furthermore, these tiny boroughs were often controlled by
lords who openly sold the right of representation to the highest bidder.
The "rotten-boroughs," as they were called by reformers, were a public
scandal, but George III readily made use of them to get his friends into
the House of Commons.

GEORGE III'S MINISTERS AND THEIR COLONIAL POLICIES

=Grenville and the War Debt.=--Within a year after the accession of
George III, William Pitt was turned out of office, the king treating him
with "gross incivility" and the crowds shouting "Pitt forever!" The
direction of affairs was entrusted to men enjoying the king's
confidence. Leadership in the House of Commons fell to George Grenville,
a grave and laborious man who for years had groaned over the increasing
cost of government.

The first task after the conclusion of peace in 1763 was the adjustment
of the disordered finances of the kingdom. The debt stood at the highest
point in the history of the country. More revenue was absolutely
necessary and Grenville began to search for it, turning his attention
finally to the American colonies. In this quest he had the aid of a
zealous colleague, Charles Townshend, who had long been in public
service and was familiar with the difficulties encountered by royal
governors in America. These two men, with the support of the entire
ministry, inaugurated in February, 1763, "a new system of colonial
government. It was announced by authority that there were to be no more
requisitions from the king to the colonial assemblies for supplies, but
that the colonies were to be taxed instead by act of Parliament.
Colonial governors and judges were to be paid by the Crown; they were to
be supported by a standing army of twenty regiments; and all the
expenses of this force were to be met by parliamentary taxation."

=Restriction of Paper Money (1763).=--Among the many complaints filed
before the board of trade were vigorous protests against the issuance of
paper money by the colonial legislatures. The new ministry provided a
remedy in the act of 1763, which declared void all colonial laws
authorizing paper money or extending the life of outstanding bills. This
law was aimed at the "cheap money" which the Americans were fond of
making when specie was scarce--money which they tried to force on their
English creditors in return for goods and in payment of the interest and
principal of debts. Thus the first chapter was written in the long
battle over sound money on this continent.

=Limitation on Western Land Sales.=--Later in the same year (1763)
George III issued a royal proclamation providing, among other things,
for the government of the territory recently acquired by the treaty of
Paris from the French. One of the provisions in this royal decree
touched frontiersmen to the quick. The contests between the king's
officers and the colonists over the disposition of western lands had
been long and sharp. The Americans chafed at restrictions on
settlement. The more adventurous were continually moving west and
"squatting" on land purchased from the Indians or simply seized without
authority. To put an end to this, the king forbade all further purchases
from the Indians, reserving to the crown the right to acquire such lands
and dispose of them for settlement. A second provision in the same
proclamation vested the power of licensing trade with the Indians,
including the lucrative fur business, in the hands of royal officers in
the colonies. These two limitations on American freedom and enterprise
were declared to be in the interest of the crown and for the
preservation of the rights of the Indians against fraud and abuses.

=The Sugar Act of 1764.=--King George's ministers next turned their
attention to measures of taxation and trade. Since the heavy debt under
which England was laboring had been largely incurred in the defense of
America, nothing seemed more reasonable to them than the proposition
that the colonies should help to bear the burden which fell so heavily
upon the English taxpayer. The Sugar Act of 1764 was the result of this
reasoning. There was no doubt about the purpose of this law, for it was
set forth clearly in the title: "An act for granting certain duties in
the British colonies and plantations in America ... for applying the
produce of such duties ... towards defraying the expenses of defending,
protecting and securing the said colonies and plantations ... and for
more effectually preventing the clandestine conveyance of goods to and
from the said colonies and plantations and improving and securing the
trade between the same and Great Britain." The old Molasses Act had been
prohibitive; the Sugar Act of 1764 was clearly intended as a revenue
measure. Specified duties were laid upon sugar, indigo, calico, silks,
and many other commodities imported into the colonies. The enforcement
of the Molasses Act had been utterly neglected; but this Sugar Act had
"teeth in it." Special precautions as to bonds, security, and
registration of ship masters, accompanied by heavy penalties, promised
a vigorous execution of the new revenue law.

The strict terms of the Sugar Act were strengthened by administrative
measures. Under a law of the previous year the commanders of armed
vessels stationed along the American coast were authorized to stop,
search, and, on suspicion, seize merchant ships approaching colonial
ports. By supplementary orders, the entire British official force in
America was instructed to be diligent in the execution of all trade and
navigation laws. Revenue collectors, officers of the army and navy, and
royal governors were curtly ordered to the front to do their full duty
in the matter of law enforcement. The ordinary motives for the discharge
of official obligations were sharpened by an appeal to avarice, for
naval officers who seized offenders against the law were rewarded by
large prizes out of the forfeitures and penalties.

=The Stamp Act (1765).=--The Grenville-Townshend combination moved
steadily towards its goal. While the Sugar Act was under consideration
in Parliament, Grenville announced a plan for a stamp bill. The next
year it went through both Houses with a speed that must have astounded
its authors. The vote in the Commons stood 205 in favor to 49 against;
while in the Lords it was not even necessary to go through the formality
of a count. As George III was temporarily insane, the measure received
royal assent by a commission acting as a board of regency. Protests of
colonial agents in London were futile. "We might as well have hindered
the sun's progress!" exclaimed Franklin. Protests of a few opponents in
the Commons were equally vain. The ministry was firm in its course and
from all appearances the Stamp Act hardly roused as much as a languid
interest in the city of London. In fact, it is recorded that the fateful
measure attracted less notice than a bill providing for a commission to
act for the king when he was incapacitated.

The Stamp Act, like the Sugar Act, declared the purpose of the British
government to raise revenue in America "towards defraying the expenses
of defending, protecting, and securing the British colonies and
plantations in America." It was a long measure of more than fifty
sections, carefully planned and skillfully drawn. By its provisions
duties were imposed on practically all papers used in legal
transactions,--deeds, mortgages, inventories, writs, bail bonds,--on
licenses to practice law and sell liquor, on college diplomas, playing
cards, dice, pamphlets, newspapers, almanacs, calendars, and
advertisements. The drag net was closely knit, for scarcely anything
escaped.

=The Quartering Act (1765).=--The ministers were aware that the Stamp
Act would rouse opposition in America--how great they could not
conjecture. While the measure was being debated, a friend of General
Wolfe, Colonel Barre, who knew America well, gave them an ominous
warning in the Commons. "Believe me--remember I this day told you so--"
he exclaimed, "the same spirit of freedom which actuated that people at
first will accompany them still ... a people jealous of their liberties
and who will vindicate them, if ever they should be violated." The
answer of the ministry to a prophecy of force was a threat of force.
Preparations were accordingly made to dispatch a larger number of
soldiers than usual to the colonies, and the ink was hardly dry on the
Stamp Act when Parliament passed the Quartering Act ordering the
colonists to provide accommodations for the soldiers who were to enforce
the new laws. "We have the power to tax them," said one of the ministry,
"and we will tax them."

COLONIAL RESISTANCE FORCES REPEAL

=Popular Opposition.=--The Stamp Act was greeted in America by an
outburst of denunciation. The merchants of the seaboard cities took the
lead in making a dignified but unmistakable protest, agreeing not to
import British goods while the hated law stood upon the books. Lawyers,
some of them incensed at the heavy taxes on their operations and others
intimidated by patriots who refused to permit them to use stamped
papers, joined with the merchants. Aristocratic colonial Whigs, who had
long grumbled at the administration of royal governors, protested
against taxation without their consent, as the Whigs had done in old
England. There were Tories, however, in the colonies as in England--many
of them of the official class--who denounced the merchants, lawyers, and
Whig aristocrats as "seditious, factious and republican." Yet the
opposition to the Stamp Act and its accompanying measure, the Quartering
Act, grew steadily all through the summer of 1765.

In a little while it was taken up in the streets and along the
countryside. All through the North and in some of the Southern colonies,
there sprang up, as if by magic, committees and societies pledged to
resist the Stamp Act to the bitter end. These popular societies were
known as Sons of Liberty and Daughters of Liberty: the former including
artisans, mechanics, and laborers; and the latter, patriotic women. Both
groups were alike in that they had as yet taken little part in public
affairs. Many artisans, as well as all the women, were excluded from the
right to vote for colonial assemblymen.

While the merchants and Whig gentlemen confined their efforts chiefly to
drafting well-phrased protests against British measures, the Sons of
Liberty operated in the streets and chose rougher measures. They stirred
up riots in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston when attempts
were made to sell the stamps. They sacked and burned the residences of
high royal officers. They organized committees of inquisition who by
threats and intimidation curtailed the sale of British goods and the use
of stamped papers. In fact, the Sons of Liberty carried their operations
to such excesses that many mild opponents of the stamp tax were
frightened and drew back in astonishment at the forces they had
unloosed. The Daughters of Liberty in a quieter way were making a very
effective resistance to the sale of the hated goods by spurring on
domestic industries, their own particular province being the manufacture
of clothing, and devising substitutes for taxed foods. They helped to
feed and clothe their families without buying British goods.

=Legislative Action against the Stamp Act.=--Leaders in the colonial
assemblies, accustomed to battle against British policies, supported the
popular protest. The Stamp Act was signed on March 22, 1765. On May 30,
the Virginia House of Burgesses passed a set of resolutions declaring
that the General Assembly of the colony alone had the right to lay taxes
upon the inhabitants and that attempts to impose them otherwise were
"illegal, unconstitutional, and unjust." It was in support of these
resolutions that Patrick Henry uttered the immortal challenge: "Caesar
had his Brutus, Charles I his Cromwell, and George III...." Cries of
"Treason" were calmly met by the orator who finished: "George III may
profit by their example. If that be treason, make the most of it."

[Illustration: PATRICK HENRY]

=The Stamp Act Congress.=--The Massachusetts Assembly answered the call
of Virginia by inviting the colonies to elect delegates to a Congress to
be held in New York to discuss the situation. Nine colonies responded
and sent representatives. The delegates, while professing the warmest
affection for the king's person and government, firmly spread on record
a series of resolutions that admitted of no double meaning. They
declared that taxes could not be imposed without their consent, given
through their respective colonial assemblies; that the Stamp Act showed
a tendency to subvert their rights and liberties; that the recent trade
acts were burdensome and grievous; and that the right to petition the
king and Parliament was their heritage. They thereupon made "humble
supplication" for the repeal of the Stamp Act.

The Stamp Act Congress was more than an assembly of protest. It marked
the rise of a new agency of government to express the will of America.
It was the germ of a government which in time was to supersede the
government of George III in the colonies. It foreshadowed the Congress
of the United States under the Constitution. It was a successful attempt
at union. "There ought to be no New England men," declared Christopher
Gadsden, in the Stamp Act Congress, "no New Yorkers known on the
Continent, but all of us Americans."

=The Repeal of the Stamp Act and the Sugar Act.=--The effect of American
resistance on opinion in England was telling. Commerce with the colonies
had been effectively boycotted by the Americans; ships lay idly swinging
at the wharves; bankruptcy threatened hundreds of merchants in London,
Bristol, and Liverpool. Workingmen in the manufacturing towns of England
were thrown out of employment. The government had sown folly and was
reaping, in place of the coveted revenue, rebellion.

Perplexed by the storm they had raised, the ministers summoned to the
bar of the House of Commons, Benjamin Franklin, the agent for
Pennsylvania, who was in London. "Do you think it right," asked
Grenville, "that America should be protected by this country and pay no
part of the expenses?" The answer was brief: "That is not the case; the
colonies raised, clothed, and paid during the last war twenty-five
thousand men and spent many millions." Then came an inquiry whether the
colonists would accept a modified stamp act. "No, never," replied
Franklin, "never! They will never submit to it!" It was next suggested
that military force might compel obedience to law. Franklin had a ready
answer. "They cannot force a man to take stamps.... They may not find a
rebellion; they may, indeed, make one."

The repeal of the Stamp Act was moved in the House of Commons a few days
later. The sponsor for the repeal spoke of commerce interrupted, debts
due British merchants placed in jeopardy, Manchester industries closed,
workingmen unemployed, oppression instituted, and the loss of the
colonies threatened. Pitt and Edmund Burke, the former near the close
of his career, the latter just beginning his, argued cogently in favor
of retracing the steps taken the year before. Grenville refused.
"America must learn," he wailed, "that prayers are not to be brought to
Caesar through riot and sedition." His protests were idle. The Commons
agreed to the repeal on February 22, 1766, amid the cheers of the
victorious majority. It was carried through the Lords in the face of
strong opposition and, on March 18, reluctantly signed by the king, now
restored to his right mind.

In rescinding the Stamp Act, Parliament did not admit the contention of
the Americans that it was without power to tax them. On the contrary, it
accompanied the repeal with a Declaratory Act. It announced that the
colonies were subordinate to the crown and Parliament of Great Britain;
that the king and Parliament therefore had undoubted authority to make
laws binding the colonies in all cases whatsoever; and that the
resolutions and proceedings of the colonists denying such authority were
null and void.

The repeal was greeted by the colonists with great popular
demonstrations. Bells were rung; toasts to the king were drunk; and
trade resumed its normal course. The Declaratory Act, as a mere paper
resolution, did not disturb the good humor of those who again cheered
the name of King George. Their confidence was soon strengthened by the
news that even the Sugar Act had been repealed, thus practically
restoring the condition of affairs before Grenville and Townshend
inaugurated their policy of "thoroughness."

RESUMPTION OF BRITISH REVENUE AND COMMERCIAL POLICIES

=The Townshend Acts (1767).=--The triumph of the colonists was brief.
Though Pitt, the friend of America, was once more prime minister, and
seated in the House of Lords as the Earl of Chatham, his severe illness
gave to Townshend and the Tory party practical control over Parliament.
Unconvinced by the experience with the Stamp Act, Townshend brought
forward and pushed through both Houses of Parliament three measures,
which to this day are associated with his name. First among his
restrictive laws was that of June 29, 1767, which placed the enforcement
of the collection of duties and customs on colonial imports and exports
in the hands of British commissioners appointed by the king, resident in
the colonies, paid from the British treasury, and independent of all
control by the colonists. The second measure of the same date imposed a
tax on lead, glass, paint, tea, and a few other articles imported into
the colonies, the revenue derived from the duties to be applied toward
the payment of the salaries and other expenses of royal colonial
officials. A third measure was the Tea Act of July 2, 1767, aimed at the
tea trade which the Americans carried on illegally with foreigners. This
law abolished the duty which the East India Company had to pay in
England on tea exported to America, for it was thought that English tea
merchants might thus find it possible to undersell American tea
smugglers.

=Writs of Assistance Legalized by Parliament.=--Had Parliament been
content with laying duties, just as a manifestation of power and right,
and neglected their collection, perhaps little would have been heard of
the Townshend Acts. It provided, however, for the strict, even the
harsh, enforcement of the law. It ordered customs officers to remain at
their posts and put an end to smuggling. In the revenue act of June 29,
1767, it expressly authorized the superior courts of the colonies to
issue "writs of assistance," empowering customs officers to enter "any
house, warehouse, shop, cellar, or other place in the British colonies
or plantations in America to search for and seize" prohibited or
smuggled goods.

The writ of assistance, which was a general search warrant issued to
revenue officers, was an ancient device hateful to a people who
cherished the spirit of personal independence and who had made actual
gains in the practice of civil liberty. To allow a "minion of the law"
to enter a man's house and search his papers and premises, was too much
for the emotions of people who had fled to America in a quest for
self-government and free homes, who had braved such hardships to
establish them, and who wanted to trade without official interference.

The writ of assistance had been used in Massachusetts in 1755 to prevent
illicit trade with Canada and had aroused a violent hostility at that
time. In 1761 it was again the subject of a bitter controversy which
arose in connection with the application of a customs officer to a
Massachusetts court for writs of assistance "as usual." This application
was vainly opposed by James Otis in a speech of five hours' duration--a
speech of such fire and eloquence that it sent every man who heard it
away "ready to take up arms against writs of assistance." Otis denounced
the practice as an exercise of arbitrary power which had cost one king
his head and another his throne, a tyrant's device which placed the
liberty of every man in jeopardy, enabling any petty officer to work
possible malice on any innocent citizen on the merest suspicion, and to
spread terror and desolation through the land. "What a scene," he
exclaimed, "does this open! Every man, prompted by revenge, ill-humor,
or wantonness to inspect the inside of his neighbor's house, may get a
writ of assistance. Others will ask it from self-defense; one arbitrary
exertion will provoke another until society is involved in tumult and
blood." He did more than attack the writ itself. He said that Parliament
could not establish it because it was against the British constitution.
This was an assertion resting on slender foundation, but it was quickly
echoed by the people. Then and there James Otis sounded the call to
America to resist the exercise of arbitrary power by royal officers.
"Then and there," wrote John Adams, "the child Independence was born."
Such was the hated writ that Townshend proposed to put into the hands of
customs officers in his grim determination to enforce the law.

=The New York Assembly Suspended.=--In the very month that Townshend's
Acts were signed by the king, Parliament took a still more drastic step.
The assembly of New York, protesting against the "ruinous and
insupportable" expense involved, had failed to make provision for the
care of British troops in accordance with the terms of the Quartering
Act. Parliament therefore suspended the assembly until it promised to
obey the law. It was not until a third election was held that compliance
with the Quartering Act was wrung from the reluctant province. In the
meantime, all the colonies had learned on how frail a foundation their
representative bodies rested.

RENEWED RESISTANCE IN AMERICA

=The Massachusetts Circular (1768).=--Massachusetts, under the
leadership of Samuel Adams, resolved to resist the policy of renewed
intervention in America. At his suggestion the assembly adopted a
Circular Letter addressed to the assemblies of the other colonies
informing them of the state of affairs in Massachusetts and roundly
condemning the whole British program. The Circular Letter declared that
Parliament had no right to lay taxes on Americans without their consent
and that the colonists could not, from the nature of the case, be
represented in Parliament. It went on shrewdly to submit to
consideration the question as to whether any people could be called free
who were subjected to governors and judges appointed by the crown and
paid out of funds raised independently. It invited the other colonies,
in the most temperate tones, to take thought about the common
predicament in which they were all placed.

[Illustration: _From an old print._

SAMUEL ADAMS]

=The Dissolution of Assemblies.=--The governor of Massachusetts, hearing
of the Circular Letter, ordered the assembly to rescind its appeal. On
meeting refusal, he promptly dissolved it. The Maryland, Georgia, and
South Carolina assemblies indorsed the Circular Letter and were also
dissolved at once. The Virginia House of Burgesses, thoroughly aroused,
passed resolutions on May 16, 1769, declaring that the sole right of
imposing taxes in Virginia was vested in its legislature, asserting anew
the right of petition to the crown, condemning the transportation of
persons accused of crimes or trial beyond the seas, and beseeching the
king for a redress of the general grievances. The immediate dissolution
of the Virginia assembly, in its turn, was the answer of the royal
governor.

=The Boston Massacre.=--American opposition to the British authorities
kept steadily rising as assemblies were dissolved, the houses of
citizens searched, and troops distributed in increasing numbers among
the centers of discontent. Merchants again agreed not to import British
goods, the Sons of Liberty renewed their agitation, and women set about
the patronage of home products still more loyally.

On the night of March 5, 1770, a crowd on the streets of Boston began to
jostle and tease some British regulars stationed in the town. Things
went from bad to worse until some "boys and young fellows" began to
throw snowballs and stones. Then the exasperated soldiers fired into the
crowd, killing five and wounding half a dozen more. The day after the
"massacre," a mass meeting was held in the town and Samuel Adams was
sent to demand the withdrawal of the soldiers. The governor hesitated
and tried to compromise. Finding Adams relentless, the governor yielded
and ordered the regulars away.

The Boston Massacre stirred the country from New Hampshire to Georgia.
Popular passions ran high. The guilty soldiers were charged with murder.
Their defense was undertaken, in spite of the wrath of the populace, by
John Adams and Josiah Quincy, who as lawyers thought even the worst
offenders entitled to their full rights in law. In his speech to the
jury, however, Adams warned the British government against its course,
saying, that "from the nature of things soldiers quartered in a populous
town will always occasion two mobs where they will prevent one." Two of
the soldiers were convicted and lightly punished.

=Resistance in the South.=--The year following the Boston Massacre some
citizens of North Carolina, goaded by the conduct of the royal governor,
openly resisted his authority. Many were killed as a result and seven
who were taken prisoners were hanged as traitors. A little later royal
troops and local militia met in a pitched battle near Alamance River,
called the "Lexington of the South."

=The _Gaspee_ Affair and the Virginia Resolutions of 1773.=--On sea as
well as on land, friction between the royal officers and the colonists
broke out into overt acts. While patrolling Narragansett Bay looking for
smugglers one day in 1772, the armed ship, _Gaspee_, ran ashore and was
caught fast. During the night several men from Providence boarded the
vessel and, after seizing the crew, set it on fire. A royal commission,
sent to Rhode Island to discover the offenders and bring them to
account, failed because it could not find a single informer. The very
appointment of such a commission aroused the patriots of Virginia to
action; and in March, 1773, the House of Burgesses passed a resolution
creating a standing committee of correspondence to develop cooeperation
among the colonies in resistance to British measures.

=The Boston Tea Party.=--Although the British government, finding the
Townshend revenue act a failure, repealed in 1770 all the duties except
that on tea, it in no way relaxed its resolve to enforce the other
commercial regulations it had imposed on the colonies. Moreover,
Parliament decided to relieve the British East India Company of the
financial difficulties into which it had fallen partly by reason of the
Tea Act and the colonial boycott that followed. In 1773 it agreed to
return to the Company the regular import duties, levied in England, on
all tea transshipped to America. A small impost of three pence, to be
collected in America, was left as a reminder of the principle laid down
in the Declaratory Act that Parliament had the right to tax the
colonists.

This arrangement with the East India Company was obnoxious to the
colonists for several reasons. It was an act of favoritism for one
thing, in the interest of a great monopoly. For another thing, it
promised to dump on the American market, suddenly, an immense amount of
cheap tea and so cause heavy losses to American merchants who had large
stocks on hand. It threatened with ruin the business of all those who
were engaged in clandestine trade with the Dutch. It carried with it an
irritating tax of three pence on imports. In Charleston, Annapolis, New
York, and Boston, captains of ships who brought tea under this act were
roughly handled. One night in December, 1773, a band of Boston citizens,
disguised as Indians, boarded the hated tea ships and dumped the cargo
into the harbor. This was serious business, for it was open, flagrant,
determined violation of the law. As such the British government viewed
it.

RETALIATION BY THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT

=Reception of the News of the Tea Riot.=--The news of the tea riot in
Boston confirmed King George in his conviction that there should be no
soft policy in dealing with his American subjects. "The die is cast," he
stated with evident satisfaction. "The colonies must either triumph or
submit.... If we take the resolute part, they will undoubtedly be very
meek." Lord George Germain characterized the tea party as "the
proceedings of a tumultuous and riotous rabble who ought, if they had
the least prudence, to follow their mercantile employments and not
trouble themselves with politics and government, which they do not
understand." This expressed, in concise form, exactly the sentiments of
Lord North, who had then for three years been the king's chief minister.
Even Pitt, Lord Chatham, was prepared to support the government in
upholding its authority.

=The Five Intolerable Acts.=--Parliament, beginning on March 31, 1774,
passed five stringent measures, known in American history as the five
"intolerable acts." They were aimed at curing the unrest in America. The
_first_ of them was a bill absolutely shutting the port of Boston to
commerce with the outside world. The _second_, following closely,
revoked the Massachusetts charter of 1691 and provided furthermore that
the councilors should be appointed by the king, that all judges should
be named by the royal governor, and that town meetings (except to elect
certain officers) could not be held without the governor's consent. A
_third_ measure, after denouncing the "utter subversion of all lawful
government" in the provinces, authorized royal agents to transfer to
Great Britain or to other colonies the trials of officers or other
persons accused of murder in connection with the enforcement of the law.
The _fourth_ act legalized the quartering of troops in Massachusetts
towns. The _fifth_ of the measures was the Quebec Act, which granted
religious toleration to the Catholics in Canada, extended the boundaries
of Quebec southward to the Ohio River, and established, in this western
region, government by a viceroy.

The intolerable acts went through Parliament with extraordinary
celerity. There was an opposition, alert and informed; but it was
ineffective. Burke spoke eloquently against the Boston port bill,
condemning it roundly for punishing the innocent with the guilty, and
showing how likely it was to bring grave consequences in its train. He
was heard with respect and his pleas were rejected. The bill passed both
houses without a division, the entry "unanimous" being made upon their
journals although it did not accurately represent the state of opinion.
The law destroying the charter of Massachusetts passed the Commons by a
vote of three to one; and the third intolerable act by a vote of four to
one. The triumph of the ministry was complete. "What passed in Boston,"
exclaimed the great jurist, Lord Mansfield, "is the overt act of High
Treason proceeding from our over lenity and want of foresight." The
crown and Parliament were united in resorting to punitive measures.

In the colonies the laws were received with consternation. To the
American Protestants, the Quebec Act was the most offensive. That
project they viewed not as an act of grace or of mercy but as a direct
attempt to enlist French Canadians on the side of Great Britain. The
British government did not grant religious toleration to Catholics
either at home or in Ireland and the Americans could see no good motive
in granting it in North America. The act was also offensive because
Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Virginia had, under their charters,
large claims in the territory thus annexed to Quebec.

To enforce these intolerable acts the military arm of the British
government was brought into play. The commander-in-chief of the armed
forces in America, General Gage, was appointed governor of
Massachusetts. Reinforcements were brought to the colonies, for now King
George was to give "the rebels," as he called them, a taste of strong
medicine. The majesty of his law was to be vindicated by force.

FROM REFORM TO REVOLUTION IN AMERICA

=The Doctrine of Natural Rights.=--The dissolution of assemblies, the
destruction of charters, and the use of troops produced in the colonies
a new phase in the struggle. In the early days of the contest with the
British ministry, the Americans spoke of their "rights as Englishmen"
and condemned the acts of Parliament as unlawful, as violating the
principles of the English constitution under which they all lived. When
they saw that such arguments had no effect on Parliament, they turned
for support to their "natural rights." The latter doctrine, in the form
in which it was employed by the colonists, was as English as the
constitutional argument. John Locke had used it with good effect in
defense of the English revolution in the seventeenth century. American
leaders, familiar with the writings of Locke, also took up his thesis in
the hour of their distress. They openly declared that their rights did
not rest after all upon the English constitution or a charter from the
crown. "Old Magna Carta was not the beginning of all things," retorted
Otis when the constitutional argument failed. "A time may come when
Parliament shall declare every American charter void, but the natural,
inherent, and inseparable rights of the colonists as men and as citizens
would remain and whatever became of charters can never be abolished
until the general conflagration." Of the same opinion was the young and
impetuous Alexander Hamilton. "The sacred rights of mankind," he
exclaimed, "are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty
records. They are written as with a sunbeam in the whole volume of human
destiny by the hand of divinity itself, and can never be erased or
obscured by mortal power."

Firm as the American leaders were in the statement and defense of their
rights, there is every reason for believing that in the beginning they
hoped to confine the conflict to the realm of opinion. They constantly
avowed that they were loyal to the king when protesting in the strongest
language against his policies. Even Otis, regarded by the loyalists as a
firebrand, was in fact attempting to avert revolution by winning
concessions from England. "I argue this cause with the greater
pleasure," he solemnly urged in his speech against the writs of
assistance, "as it is in favor of British liberty ... and as it is in
opposition to a kind of power, the exercise of which in former periods
cost one king of England his head and another his throne."

=Burke Offers the Doctrine of Conciliation.=--The flooding tide of
American sentiment was correctly measured by one Englishman at least,
Edmund Burke, who quickly saw that attempts to restrain the rise of
American democracy were efforts to reverse the processes of nature. He
saw how fixed and rooted in the nature of things was the American
spirit--how inevitable, how irresistible. He warned his countrymen that
there were three ways of handling the delicate situation--and only
three. One was to remove the cause of friction by changing the spirit of
the colonists--an utter impossibility because that spirit was grounded
in the essential circumstances of American life. The second was to
prosecute American leaders as criminals; of this he begged his
countrymen to beware lest the colonists declare that "a government
against which a claim of liberty is tantamount to high treason is a
government to which submission is equivalent to slavery." The third and
right way to meet the problem, Burke concluded, was to accept the
American spirit, repeal the obnoxious measures, and receive the colonies
into equal partnership.

=Events Produce the Great Decision.=--The right way, indicated by Burke,
was equally impossible to George III and the majority in Parliament. To
their narrow minds, American opinion was contemptible and American
resistance unlawful, riotous, and treasonable. The correct way, in their
view, was to dispatch more troops to crush the "rebels"; and that very
act took the contest from the realm of opinion. As John Adams said:
"Facts are stubborn things." Opinions were unseen, but marching soldiers
were visible to the veriest street urchin. "Now," said Gouverneur
Morris, "the sheep, simple as they are, cannot be gulled as heretofore."
It was too late to talk about the excellence of the British
constitution. If any one is bewildered by the controversies of modern
historians as to why the crisis came at last, he can clarify his
understanding by reading again Edmund Burke's stately oration, _On
Conciliation with America_.

=References=

G.L. Beer, _British Colonial Policy_ (1754-63).

E. Channing, _History of the United States_, Vol. III.

R. Frothingham, _Rise of the Republic_.

G.E. Howard, _Preliminaries of the Revolution_ (American Nation Series).

J.K. Hosmer, _Samuel Adams_.

J.T. Morse, _Benjamin Franklin_.

M.C. Tyler, _Patrick Henry_.

J.A. Woodburn (editor), _The American Revolution_ (Selections from the
English work by Lecky).

=Questions=

1. Show how the character of George III made for trouble with the
colonies.

2. Explain why the party and parliamentary systems of England favored
the plans of George III.

3. How did the state of English finances affect English policy?

4. Enumerate five important measures of the English government affecting
the colonies between 1763 and 1765. Explain each in detail.

5. Describe American resistance to the Stamp Act. What was the outcome?

6. Show how England renewed her policy of regulation in 1767.

7. Summarize the events connected with American resistance.

8. With what measures did Great Britain retaliate?

9. Contrast "constitutional" with "natural" rights.

10. What solution did Burke offer? Why was it rejected?

=Research Topics=

=Powers Conferred on Revenue Officers by Writs of Assistance.=--See a
writ in Macdonald, _Source Book_, p. 109.

=The Acts of Parliament Respecting America.=--Macdonald, pp. 117-146.
Assign one to each student for report and comment.

=Source Studies on the Stamp Act.=--Hart, _American History Told by
Contemporaries_, Vol. II, pp. 394-412.

=Source Studies of the Townshend Acts.=--Hart, Vol. II, pp. 413-433.

=American Principles.=--Prepare a table of them from the Resolutions of
the Stamp Act Congress and the Massachusetts Circular. Macdonald, pp.
136-146.

=An English Historian's View of the Period.=--Green, _Short History of
England_, Chap. X.

=English Policy Not Injurious to America.=--Callender, _Economic
History_, pp. 85-121.

=A Review of English Policy.=--Woodrow Wilson, _History of the American
People_, Vol. II, pp. 129-170.

=The Opening of the Revolution.=--Elson, _History of the United States_,
pp. 220-235.

CHAPTER VI

THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

RESISTANCE AND RETALIATION

=The Continental Congress.=--When the news of the "intolerable acts"
reached America, every one knew what strong medicine Parliament was
prepared to administer to all those who resisted its authority. The
cause of Massachusetts became the cause of all the colonies. Opposition
to British policy, hitherto local and spasmodic, now took on a national
character. To local committees and provincial conventions was added a
Continental Congress, appropriately called by Massachusetts on June 17,
1774, at the instigation of Samuel Adams. The response to the summons
was electric. By hurried and irregular methods delegates were elected
during the summer, and on September 5 the Congress duly assembled in
Carpenter's Hall in Philadelphia. Many of the greatest men in America
were there--George Washington and Patrick Henry from Virginia and John
and Samuel Adams from Massachusetts. Every shade of opinion was
represented. Some were impatient with mild devices; the majority favored
moderation.

The Congress drew up a declaration of American rights and stated in
clear and dignified language the grievances of the colonists. It
approved the resistance to British measures offered by Massachusetts and
promised the united support of all sections. It prepared an address to
King George and another to the people of England, disavowing the idea of
independence but firmly attacking the policies pursued by the British
government.

=The Non-Importation Agreement.=--The Congress was not content, however,
with professions of faith and with petitions. It took one revolutionary
step. It agreed to stop the importation of British goods into America,
and the enforcement of this agreement it placed in the hands of local
"committees of safety and inspection," to be elected by the qualified
voters. The significance of this action is obvious. Congress threw
itself athwart British law. It made a rule to bind American citizens and
to be carried into effect by American officers. It set up a state within
the British state and laid down a test of allegiance to the new order.
The colonists, who up to this moment had been wavering, had to choose
one authority or the other. They were for the enforcement of the
non-importation agreement or they were against it. They either bought
English goods or they did not. In the spirit of the toast--"May Britain
be wise and America be free"--the first Continental Congress adjourned
in October, having appointed the tenth of May following for the meeting
of a second Congress, should necessity require.

=Lord North's "Olive Branch."=--When the news of the action of the
American Congress reached England, Pitt and Burke warmly urged a repeal
of the obnoxious laws, but in vain. All they could wring from the prime
minister, Lord North, was a set of "conciliatory resolutions" proposing
to relieve from taxation any colony that would assume its share of
imperial defense and make provision for supporting the local officers of
the crown. This "olive branch" was accompanied by a resolution assuring
the king of support at all hazards in suppressing the rebellion and by
the restraining act of March 30, 1775, which in effect destroyed the
commerce of New England.

=Bloodshed at Lexington and Concord (April 19, 1775).=--Meanwhile the
British authorities in Massachusetts relaxed none of their efforts in
upholding British sovereignty. General Gage, hearing that military
stores had been collected at Concord, dispatched a small force to seize
them. By this act he precipitated the conflict he had sought to avoid.
At Lexington, on the road to Concord, occurred "the little thing" that
produced "the great event." An unexpected collision beyond the thought
or purpose of any man had transferred the contest from the forum to the
battle field.

=The Second Continental Congress.=--Though blood had been shed and war
was actually at hand, the second Continental Congress, which met at
Philadelphia in May, 1775, was not yet convinced that conciliation was
beyond human power. It petitioned the king to interpose on behalf of the
colonists in order that the empire might avoid the calamities of civil
war. On the last day of July, it made a temperate but firm answer to
Lord North's offer of conciliation, stating that the proposal was
unsatisfactory because it did not renounce the right to tax or repeal
the offensive acts of Parliament.

=Force, the British Answer.=--Just as the representatives of America
were about to present the last petition of Congress to the king on
August 23, 1775, George III issued a proclamation of rebellion. This
announcement declared that the colonists, "misled by dangerous and
ill-designing men," were in a state of insurrection; it called on the
civil and military powers to bring "the traitors to justice"; and it
threatened with "condign punishment the authors, perpetrators, and
abettors of such traitorous designs." It closed with the usual prayer:
"God, save the king." Later in the year, Parliament passed a sweeping
act destroying all trade and intercourse with America. Congress was
silent at last. Force was also America's answer.

AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE

=Drifting into War.=--Although the Congress had not given up all hope of
reconciliation in the spring and summer of 1775, it had firmly resolved
to defend American rights by arms if necessary. It transformed the
militiamen who had assembled near Boston, after the battle of Lexington,
into a Continental army and selected Washington as commander-in-chief.
It assumed the powers of a government and prepared to raise money, wage
war, and carry on diplomatic relations with foreign countries.

[Illustration: _From an old print_

SPIRIT OF 1776]

Events followed thick and fast. On June 17, the American militia, by
the stubborn defense of Bunker Hill, showed that it could make British
regulars pay dearly for all they got. On July 3, Washington took command
of the army at Cambridge. In January, 1776, after bitter disappointments
in drumming up recruits for its army in England, Scotland, and Ireland,
the British government concluded a treaty with the Landgrave of
Hesse-Cassel in Germany contracting, at a handsome figure, for thousands
of soldiers and many pieces of cannon. This was the crowning insult to
America. Such was the view of all friends of the colonies on both sides
of the water. Such was, long afterward, the judgment of the conservative
historian Lecky: "The conduct of England in hiring German mercenaries to
subdue the essentially English population beyond the Atlantic made
reconciliation hopeless and independence inevitable." The news of this
wretched transaction in German soldiers had hardly reached America
before there ran all down the coast the thrilling story that Washington
had taken Boston, on March 17, 1776, compelling Lord Howe to sail with
his entire army for Halifax.

=The Growth of Public Sentiment in Favor of Independence.=--Events were
bearing the Americans away from their old position under the British
constitution toward a final separation. Slowly and against their
desires, prudent and honorable men, who cherished the ties that united
them to the old order and dreaded with genuine horror all thought of
revolution, were drawn into the path that led to the great decision. In
all parts of the country and among all classes, the question of the hour
was being debated. "American independence," as the historian Bancroft
says, "was not an act of sudden passion nor the work of one man or one
assembly. It had been discussed in every part of the country by farmers
and merchants, by mechanics and planters, by the fishermen along the
coast and the backwoodsmen of the West; in town meetings and from the
pulpit; at social gatherings and around the camp fires; in county
conventions and conferences or committees; in colonial congresses and
assemblies."

[Illustration: _From an old print_

THOMAS PAINE]

=Paine's "Commonsense."=--In the midst of this ferment of American
opinion, a bold and eloquent pamphleteer broke in upon the hesitating
public with a program for absolute independence, without fears and
without apologies. In the early days of 1776, Thomas Paine issued the
first of his famous tracts, "Commonsense," a passionate attack upon the
British monarchy and an equally passionate plea for American liberty.
Casting aside the language of petition with which Americans had hitherto
addressed George III, Paine went to the other extreme and assailed him
with many a violent epithet. He condemned monarchy itself as a system
which had laid the world "in blood and ashes." Instead of praising the
British constitution under which colonists had been claiming their
rights, he brushed it aside as ridiculous, protesting that it was "owing
to the constitution of the people, not to the constitution of the
government, that the Crown is not as oppressive in England as in
Turkey."

Having thus summarily swept away the grounds of allegiance to the old
order, Paine proceeded relentlessly to an argument for immediate
separation from Great Britain. There was nothing in the sphere of
practical interest, he insisted, which should bind the colonies to the
mother country. Allegiance to her had been responsible for the many wars
in which they had been involved. Reasons of trade were not less weighty
in behalf of independence. "Our corn will fetch its price in any market
in Europe and our imported goods must be paid for, buy them where we
will." As to matters of government, "it is not in the power of Britain
to do this continent justice; the business of it will soon be too
weighty and intricate to be managed with any tolerable degree of
convenience by a power so distant from us and so very ignorant of us."

There is accordingly no alternative to independence for America.
"Everything that is right or natural pleads for separation. The blood of
the slain, the weeping voice of nature cries ''tis time to part.' ...
Arms, the last resort, must decide the contest; the appeal was the
choice of the king and the continent hath accepted the challenge.... The
sun never shone on a cause of greater worth. 'Tis not the affair of a
city, a county, a province or a kingdom, but of a continent.... 'Tis not
the concern of a day, a year or an age; posterity is involved in the
contest and will be more or less affected to the end of time by the
proceedings now. Now is the seed-time of Continental union, faith, and
honor.... O! ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose not only the
tyranny, but the tyrant, stand forth.... Let names of Whig and Tory be
extinct. Let none other be heard among us than those of a good citizen,
an open and resolute friend, and a virtuous supporter of the rights of
mankind and of the free and independent states of America." As more than
100,000 copies were scattered broadcast over the country, patriots
exclaimed with Washington: "Sound doctrine and unanswerable reason!"

=The Drift of Events toward Independence.=--Official support for the
idea of independence began to come from many quarters. On the tenth of
February, 1776, Gadsden, in the provincial convention of South Carolina,
advocated a new constitution for the colony and absolute independence
for all America. The convention balked at the latter but went half way
by abolishing the system of royal administration and establishing a
complete plan of self-government. A month later, on April 12, the
neighboring state of North Carolina uttered the daring phrase from which
others shrank. It empowered its representatives in the Congress to
concur with the delegates of the other colonies in declaring
independence. Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Virginia quickly
responded to the challenge. The convention of the Old Dominion, on May
15, instructed its delegates at Philadelphia to propose the independence
of the United Colonies and to give the assent of Virginia to the act of
separation. When the resolution was carried the British flag on the
state house was lowered for all time.

Meanwhile the Continental Congress was alive to the course of events
outside. The subject of independence was constantly being raised. "Are
we rebels?" exclaimed Wyeth of Virginia during a debate in February.
"No: we must declare ourselves a free people." Others hesitated and
spoke of waiting for the arrival of commissioners of conciliation. "Is
not America already independent?" asked Samuel Adams a few weeks later.
"Why not then declare it?" Still there was uncertainty and delegates
avoided the direct word. A few more weeks elapsed. At last, on May 10,
Congress declared that the authority of the British crown in America
must be suppressed and advised the colonies to set up governments of
their own.

[Illustration: _From an old print_

THOMAS JEFFERSON READING HIS DRAFT OF THE DECLARATION OF
INDEPENDENCE TO THE COMMITTEE OF CONGRESS]

=Independence Declared.=--The way was fully prepared, therefore, when,
on June 7, the Virginia delegation in the Congress moved that "these
united colonies are and of right ought to be free and independent
states." A committee was immediately appointed to draft a formal
document setting forth the reasons for the act, and on July 2 all the
states save New York went on record in favor of severing their political
connection with Great Britain. Two days later, July 4, Jefferson's draft
of the Declaration of Independence, changed in some slight particulars,
was adopted. The old bell in Independence Hall, as it is now known, rang
out the glad tidings; couriers swiftly carried the news to the uttermost
hamlet and farm. A new nation announced its will to have a place among
the powers of the world.

To some documents is given immortality. The Declaration of Independence
is one of them. American patriotism is forever associated with it; but
patriotism alone does not make it immortal. Neither does the vigor of
its language or the severity of its indictment give it a secure place in
the records of time. The secret of its greatness lies in the simple fact
that it is one of the memorable landmarks in the history of a political
ideal which for three centuries has been taking form and spreading
throughout the earth, challenging kings and potentates, shaking down
thrones and aristocracies, breaking the armies of irresponsible power on
battle fields as far apart as Marston Moor and Chateau-Thierry. That
ideal, now so familiar, then so novel, is summed up in the simple
sentence: "Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the
governed."

Written in a "decent respect for the opinions of mankind," to set forth
the causes which impelled the American colonists to separate from
Britain, the Declaration contained a long list of "abuses and
usurpations" which had induced them to throw off the government of King
George. That section of the Declaration has passed into "ancient"
history and is seldom read. It is the part laying down a new basis for
government and giving a new dignity to the common man that has become a
household phrase in the Old World as in the New.

In the more enduring passages there are four fundamental ideas which,
from the standpoint of the old system of government, were the essence of
revolution: (1) all men are created equal and are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable rights including life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness; (2) the purpose of government is to secure these
rights; (3) governments derive their just powers from the consent of the
governed; (4) whenever any form of government becomes destructive of
these ends it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and
institute new government, laying its foundations on such principles and
organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to
effect their safety and happiness. Here was the prelude to the historic
drama of democracy--a challenge to every form of government and every
privilege not founded on popular assent.

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF GOVERNMENT AND THE NEW ALLEGIANCE

=The Committees of Correspondence.=--As soon as debate had passed into
armed resistance, the patriots found it necessary to consolidate their
forces by organizing civil government. This was readily effected, for
the means were at hand in town meetings, provincial legislatures, and
committees of correspondence. The working tools of the Revolution were
in fact the committees of correspondence--small, local, unofficial
groups of patriots formed to exchange views and create public sentiment.
As early as November, 1772, such a committee had been created in Boston
under the leadership of Samuel Adams. It held regular meetings, sent
emissaries to neighboring towns, and carried on a campaign of education
in the doctrines of liberty.

[Illustration: THE COLONIES OF NORTH AMERICA AT THE TIME OF THE
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE]

Upon local organizations similar in character to the Boston committee
were built county committees and then the larger colonial committees,
congresses, and conventions, all unofficial and representing the
revolutionary elements. Ordinarily the provincial convention was merely
the old legislative assembly freed from all royalist sympathizers and
controlled by patriots. Finally, upon these colonial assemblies was
built the Continental Congress, the precursor of union under the
Articles of Confederation and ultimately under the Constitution of the
United States. This was the revolutionary government set up within the
British empire in America.

=State Constitutions Framed.=--With the rise of these new assemblies of
the people, the old colonial governments broke down. From the royal
provinces the governor, the judges, and the high officers fled in haste,
and it became necessary to substitute patriot authorities. The appeal to
the colonies advising them to adopt a new form of government for
themselves, issued by the Congress in May, 1776, was quickly acted upon.
Before the expiration of a year, Virginia, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Delaware, Maryland, Georgia, and New York had drafted new constitutions
as states, not as colonies uncertain of their destinies. Connecticut and
Rhode Island, holding that their ancient charters were equal to their
needs, merely renounced their allegiance to the king and went on as
before so far as the form of government was concerned. South Carolina,
which had drafted a temporary plan early in 1776, drew up a new and more
complete constitution in 1778. Two years later Massachusetts with much
deliberation put into force its fundamental law, which in most of its
essential features remains unchanged to-day.

The new state constitutions in their broad outlines followed colonial
models. For the royal governor was substituted a governor or president
chosen usually by the legislature; but in two instances, New York and
Massachusetts, by popular vote. For the provincial council there was
substituted, except in Georgia, a senate; while the lower house, or
assembly, was continued virtually without change. The old property
restriction on the suffrage, though lowered slightly in some states, was
continued in full force to the great discontent of the mechanics thus
deprived of the ballot. The special qualifications, laid down in several
constitutions, for governors, senators, and representatives, indicated
that the revolutionary leaders were not prepared for any radical
experiments in democracy. The protests of a few women, like Mrs. John
Adams of Massachusetts and Mrs. Henry Corbin of Virginia, against a
government which excluded them from political rights were treated as
mild curiosities of no significance, although in New Jersey women were
allowed to vote for many years on the same terms as men.

By the new state constitutions the signs and symbols of royal power, of
authority derived from any source save "the people," were swept aside
and republican governments on an imposing scale presented for the first
time to the modern world. Copies of these remarkable documents prepared
by plain citizens were translated into French and widely circulated in
Europe. There they were destined to serve as a guide and inspiration to
a generation of constitution-makers whose mission it was to begin the
democratic revolution in the Old World.

=The Articles of Confederation.=--The formation of state constitutions
was an easy task for the revolutionary leaders. They had only to build
on foundations already laid. The establishment of a national system of
government was another matter. There had always been, it must be
remembered, a system of central control over the colonies, but Americans
had had little experience in its operation. When the supervision of the
crown of Great Britain was suddenly broken, the patriot leaders,
accustomed merely to provincial statesmanship, were poorly trained for
action on a national stage.

Many forces worked against those who, like Franklin, had a vision of
national destiny. There were differences in economic interest--commerce
and industry in the North and the planting system of the South. There
were contests over the apportionment of taxes and the quotas of troops
for common defense. To these practical difficulties were added local
pride, the vested rights of state and village politicians in their
provincial dignity, and the scarcity of men with a large outlook upon
the common enterprise.

Nevertheless, necessity compelled them to consider some sort of
federation. The second Continental Congress had hardly opened its work
before the most sagacious leaders began to urge the desirability of a
permanent connection. As early as July, 1775, Congress resolved to go
into a committee of the whole on the state of the union, and Franklin,
undaunted by the fate of his Albany plan of twenty years before, again
presented a draft of a constitution. Long and desultory debates followed
and it was not until late in 1777 that Congress presented to the states
the Articles of Confederation. Provincial jealousies delayed
ratification, and it was the spring of 1781, a few months before the
surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown, when Maryland, the last of the
states, approved the Articles. This plan of union, though it was all
that could be wrung from the reluctant states, provided for neither a
chief executive nor a system of federal courts. It created simply a
Congress of delegates in which each state had an equal voice and gave it
the right to call upon the state legislatures for the sinews of
government--money and soldiers.

=The Application of Tests of Allegiance.=--As the successive steps were
taken in the direction of independent government, the patriots devised
and applied tests designed to discover who were for and who were against
the new nation in the process of making. When the first Continental
Congress agreed not to allow the importation of British goods, it
provided for the creation of local committees to enforce the rules. Such
agencies were duly formed by the choice of men favoring the scheme, all
opponents being excluded from the elections. Before these bodies those
who persisted in buying British goods were summoned and warned or
punished according to circumstances. As soon as the new state
constitutions were put into effect, local committees set to work in the
same way to ferret out all who were not outspoken in their support of
the new order of things.

[Illustration: MOBBING THE TORIES]

These patriot agencies, bearing different names in different sections,
were sometimes ruthless in their methods. They called upon all men to
sign the test of loyalty, frequently known as the "association test."
Those who refused were promptly branded as outlaws, while some of the
more dangerous were thrown into jail. The prison camp in Connecticut at
one time held the former governor of New Jersey and the mayor of New
York. Thousands were black-listed and subjected to espionage. The
black-list of Pennsylvania contained the names of nearly five hundred
persons of prominence who were under suspicion. Loyalists or Tories who
were bold enough to speak and write against the Revolution were
suppressed and their pamphlets burned. In many places, particularly in
the North, the property of the loyalists was confiscated and the
proceeds applied to the cause of the Revolution.

The work of the official agencies for suppression of opposition was
sometimes supplemented by mob violence. A few Tories were hanged without
trial, and others were tarred and feathered. One was placed upon a cake
of ice and held there "until his loyalty to King George might cool."
Whole families were driven out of their homes to find their way as best
they could within the British lines or into Canada, where the British
government gave them lands. Such excesses were deplored by Washington,
but they were defended on the ground that in effect a civil war, as well
as a war for independence, was being waged.

=The Patriots and Tories.=--Thus, by one process or another, those who
were to be citizens of the new republic were separated from those who
preferred to be subjects of King George. Just what proportion of the
Americans favored independence and what share remained loyal to the
British monarchy there is no way of knowing. The question of revolution
was not submitted to popular vote, and on the point of numbers we have
conflicting evidence. On the patriot side, there is the testimony of a
careful and informed observer, John Adams, who asserted that two-thirds
of the people were for the American cause and not more than one-third
opposed the Revolution at all stages.

On behalf of the loyalists, or Tories as they were popularly known,
extravagant claims were made. Joseph Galloway, who had been a member of
the first Continental Congress and had fled to England when he saw its
temper, testified before a committee of Parliament in 1779 that not
one-fifth of the American people supported the insurrection and that
"many more than four-fifths of the people prefer a union with Great
Britain upon constitutional principles to independence." At the same
time General Robertson, who had lived in America twenty-four years,
declared that "more than two-thirds of the people would prefer the
king's government to the Congress' tyranny." In an address to the king
in that year a committee of American loyalists asserted that "the number
of Americans in his Majesty's army exceeded the number of troops
enlisted by Congress to oppose them."

=The Character of the Loyalists.=--When General Howe evacuated Boston,
more than a thousand people fled with him. This great company, according
to a careful historian, "formed the aristocracy of the province by
virtue of their official rank; of their dignified callings and
professions; of their hereditary wealth and of their culture." The act
of banishment passed by Massachusetts in 1778, listing over 300 Tories,
"reads like the social register of the oldest and noblest families of
New England," more than one out of five being graduates of Harvard
College. The same was true of New York and Philadelphia; namely, that
the leading loyalists were prominent officials of the old order,
clergymen and wealthy merchants. With passion the loyalists fought
against the inevitable or with anguish of heart they left as refugees
for a life of uncertainty in Canada or the mother country.

=Tories Assail the Patriots.=--The Tories who remained in America joined
the British army by the thousands or in other ways aided the royal
cause. Those who were skillful with the pen assailed the patriots in
editorials, rhymes, satires, and political catechisms. They declared
that the members of Congress were "obscure, pettifogging attorneys,
bankrupt shopkeepers, outlawed smugglers, etc." The people and their
leaders they characterized as "wretched banditti ... the refuse and
dregs of mankind." The generals in the army they sneered at as "men of
rank and honor nearly on a par with those of the Congress."

=Patriot Writers Arouse the National Spirit.=--Stung by Tory taunts,
patriot writers devoted themselves to creating and sustaining a public
opinion favorable to the American cause. Moreover, they had to combat
the depression that grew out of the misfortunes in the early days of the
war. A terrible disaster befell Generals Arnold and Montgomery in the
winter of 1775 as they attempted to bring Canada into the revolution--a
disaster that cost 5000 men; repeated calamities harassed Washington in
1776 as he was defeated on Long Island, driven out of New York City, and
beaten at Harlem Heights and White Plains. These reverses were almost
too great for the stoutest patriots.

Pamphleteers, preachers, and publicists rose, however, to meet the needs
of the hour. John Witherspoon, provost of the College of New Jersey,
forsook the classroom for the field of political controversy. The poet,
Philip Freneau, flung taunts of cowardice at the Tories and celebrated
the spirit of liberty in many a stirring poem. Songs, ballads, plays,
and satires flowed from the press in an unending stream. Fast days,
battle anniversaries, celebrations of important steps taken by Congress
afforded to patriotic clergymen abundant opportunities for sermons.
"Does Mr. Wiberd preach against oppression?" anxiously inquired John
Adams in a letter to his wife. The answer was decisive. "The clergy of
every denomination, not excepting the Episcopalian, thunder and lighten
every Sabbath. They pray for Boston and Massachusetts. They thank God
most explicitly and fervently for our remarkable successes. They pray
for the American army."

Thomas Paine never let his pen rest. He had been with the forces of
Washington when they retreated from Fort Lee and were harried from New
Jersey into Pennsylvania. He knew the effect of such reverses on the
army as well as on the public. In December, 1776, he made a second great
appeal to his countrymen in his pamphlet, "The Crisis," the first part
of which he had written while defeat and gloom were all about him. This
tract was a cry for continued support of the Revolution. "These are the
times that try men's souls," he opened. "The summer soldier and the
sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his
country; but he that stands it now deserves the love and thanks of men
and women." Paine laid his lash fiercely on the Tories, branding every
one as a coward grounded in "servile, slavish, self-interested fear." He
deplored the inadequacy of the militia and called for a real army. He
refuted the charge that the retreat through New Jersey was a disaster
and he promised victory soon. "By perseverance and fortitude," he
concluded, "we have the prospect of a glorious issue; by cowardice and
submission the sad choice of a variety of evils--a ravaged country, a
depopulated city, habitations without safety and slavery without
hope.... Look on this picture and weep over it." His ringing call to
arms was followed by another and another until the long contest was
over.

MILITARY AFFAIRS

=The Two Phases of the War.=--The war which opened with the battle of
Lexington, on April 19, 1775, and closed with the surrender of
Cornwallis at Yorktown on October 19, 1781, passed through two distinct
phases--the first lasting until the treaty of alliance with France, in
1778, and the second until the end of the struggle. During the first
phase, the war was confined mainly to the North. The outstanding
features of the contest were the evacuation of Boston by the British,
the expulsion of American forces from New York and their retreat through
New Jersey, the battle of Trenton, the seizure of Philadelphia by the
British (September, 1777), the invasion of New York by Burgoyne and his
capture at Saratoga in October, 1777, and the encampment of American
forces at Valley Forge for the terrible winter of 1777-78.

The final phase of the war, opening with the treaty of alliance with
France on February 6, 1778, was confined mainly to the Middle states,
the West, and the South. In the first sphere of action the chief events
were the withdrawal of the British from Philadelphia, the battle of
Monmouth, and the inclosure of the British in New York by deploying
American forces from Morristown, New Jersey, up to West Point. In the
West, George Rogers Clark, by his famous march into the Illinois
country, secured Kaskaskia and Vincennes and laid a firm grip on the
country between the Ohio and the Great Lakes. In the South, the second
period opened with successes for the British. They captured Savannah,
conquered Georgia, and restored the royal governor. In 1780 they seized
Charleston, administered a crushing defeat to the American forces under
Gates at Camden, and overran South Carolina, though meeting reverses at
Cowpens and King's Mountain. Then came the closing scenes. Cornwallis
began the last of his operations. He pursued General Greene far into
North Carolina, clashed with him at Guilford Court House, retired to the
coast, took charge of British forces engaged in plundering Virginia, and
fortified Yorktown, where he was penned up by the French fleet from the
sea and the combined French and American forces on land.

=The Geographical Aspects of the War.=--For the British the theater of
the war offered many problems. From first to last it extended from
Massachusetts to Georgia, a distance of almost a thousand miles. It was
nearly three thousand miles from the main base of supplies and, though
the British navy kept the channel open, transports were constantly
falling prey to daring privateers and fleet American war vessels. The
sea, on the other hand, offered an easy means of transportation between
points along the coast and gave ready access to the American centers of
wealth and population. Of this the British made good use. Though early
forced to give up Boston, they seized New York and kept it until the end
of the war; they took Philadelphia and retained it until threatened by
the approach of the French fleet; and they captured and held both
Savannah and Charleston. Wars, however, are seldom won by the conquest
of cities.

Particularly was this true in the case of the Revolution. Only a small
portion of the American people lived in towns. Countrymen back from the
coast were in no way dependent upon them for a livelihood. They lived on
the produce of the soil, not upon the profits of trade. This very fact
gave strength to them in the contest. Whenever the British ventured far
from the ports of entry, they encountered reverses. Burgoyne was forced
to surrender at Saratoga because he was surrounded and cut off from his
base of supplies. As soon as the British got away from Charleston, they
were harassed and worried by the guerrilla warriors of Marion, Sumter,
and Pickens. Cornwallis could technically defeat Greene at Guilford far
in the interior; but he could not hold the inland region he had invaded.
Sustained by their own labor, possessing the interior to which their
armies could readily retreat, supplied mainly from native resources, the
Americans could not be hemmed in, penned up, and destroyed at one fell
blow.

=The Sea Power.=--The British made good use of their fleet in cutting
off American trade, but control of the sea did not seriously affect the
United States. As an agricultural country, the ruin of its commerce was
not such a vital matter. All the materials for a comfortable though
somewhat rude life were right at hand. It made little difference to a
nation fighting for existence, if silks, fine linens, and chinaware were
cut off. This was an evil to which submission was necessary.

Nor did the brilliant exploits of John Paul Jones and Captain John Barry
materially change the situation. They demonstrated the skill of American
seamen and their courage as fighting men. They raised the rates of
British marine insurance, but they did not dethrone the mistress of the
seas. Less spectacular, and more distinctive, were the deeds of the
hundreds of privateers and minor captains who overhauled British supply
ships and kept British merchantmen in constant anxiety. Not until the
French fleet was thrown into the scale, were the British compelled to
reckon seriously with the enemy on the sea and make plans based upon the
possibilities of a maritime disaster.

=Commanding Officers.=--On the score of military leadership it is
difficult to compare the contending forces in the revolutionary contest.
There is no doubt that all the British commanders were men of experience
in the art of warfare. Sir William Howe had served in America during the
French War and was accounted an excellent officer, a strict
disciplinarian, and a gallant gentleman. Nevertheless he loved ease,
society, and good living, and his expulsion from Boston, his failure to
overwhelm Washington by sallies from his comfortable bases at New York
and Philadelphia, destroyed every shred of his military reputation. John
Burgoyne, to whom was given the task of penetrating New York from
Canada, had likewise seen service in the French War both in America and
Europe. He had, however, a touch of the theatrical in his nature and
after the collapse of his plans and the surrender of his army in 1777,
he devoted his time mainly to light literature. Sir Henry Clinton, who
directed the movement which ended in the capture of Charleston in 1780,
had "learned his trade on the continent," and was regarded as a man of
discretion and understanding in military matters. Lord Cornwallis, whose
achievements at Camden and Guilford were blotted out by his surrender at
Yorktown, had seen service in the Seven Years' War and had undoubted
talents which he afterward displayed with great credit to himself in
India. Though none of them, perhaps, were men of first-rate ability,
they all had training and experience to guide them.

[Illustration: GEORGE WASHINGTON]

The Americans had a host in Washington himself. He had long been
interested in military strategy and had tested his coolness under fire
during the first clashes with the French nearly twenty years before. He
had no doubts about the justice of his cause, such as plagued some of
the British generals. He was a stern but reasonable disciplinarian. He
was reserved and patient, little given to exaltation at success or
depression at reverses. In the dark hour of the Revolution, "what held
the patriot forces together?" asks Beveridge in his _Life of John
Marshall_. Then he answers: "George Washington and he alone. Had he
died or been seriously disabled, the Revolution would have ended....
Washington was the soul of the American cause. Washington was the
government. Washington was the Revolution." The weakness of Congress in
furnishing men and supplies, the indolence of civilians, who lived at
ease while the army starved, the intrigues of army officers against him
such as the "Conway cabal," the cowardice of Lee at Monmouth, even the
treason of Benedict Arnold, while they stirred deep emotions in his
breast and aroused him to make passionate pleas to his countrymen, did
not shake his iron will or his firm determination to see the war through
to the bitter end. The weight of Washington's moral force was
immeasurable.

Of the generals who served under him, none can really be said to have
been experienced military men when the war opened. Benedict Arnold, the
unhappy traitor but brave and daring soldier, was a druggist, book
seller, and ship owner at New Haven when the news of Lexington called
him to battle. Horatio Gates was looked upon as a "seasoned soldier"
because he had entered the British army as a youth, had been wounded at
Braddock's memorable defeat, and had served with credit during the Seven
Years' War; but he was the most conspicuous failure of the Revolution.
The triumph over Burgoyne was the work of other men; and his crushing
defeat at Camden put an end to his military pretensions. Nathanael
Greene was a Rhode Island farmer and smith without military experience
who, when convinced that war was coming, read Caesar's _Commentaries_ and
took up the sword. Francis Marion was a shy and modest planter of South
Carolina whose sole passage at arms had been a brief but desperate brush
with the Indians ten or twelve years earlier. Daniel Morgan, one of the
heroes of Cowpens, had been a teamster with Braddock's army and had seen
some fighting during the French and Indian War, but his military
knowledge, from the point of view of a trained British officer, was
negligible. John Sullivan was a successful lawyer at Durham, New
Hampshire, and a major in the local militia when duty summoned him to
lay down his briefs and take up the sword. Anthony Wayne was a
Pennsylvania farmer and land surveyor who, on hearing the clash of arms,
read a few books on war, raised a regiment, and offered himself for
service. Such is the story of the chief American military leaders, and
it is typical of them all. Some had seen fighting with the French and
Indians, but none of them had seen warfare on a large scale with regular
troops commanded according to the strategy evolved in European
experience. Courage, native ability, quickness of mind, and knowledge of
the country they had in abundance, and in battles such as were fought
during the Revolution all those qualities counted heavily in the
balance.

=Foreign Officers in American Service.=--To native genius was added
military talent from beyond the seas. Baron Steuben, well schooled in
the iron regime of Frederick the Great, came over from Prussia, joined
Washington at Valley Forge, and day after day drilled and manoeuvered the
men, laughing and cursing as he turned raw countrymen into regular
soldiers. From France came young Lafayette and the stern De Kalb, from
Poland came Pulaski and Kosciusko;--all acquainted with the arts of war
as waged in Europe and fitted for leadership as well as teaching.
Lafayette came early, in 1776, in a ship of his own, accompanied by
several officers of wide experience, and remained loyally throughout the
war sharing the hardships of American army life. Pulaski fell at the
siege of Savannah and De Kalb at Camden. Kosciusko survived the American
war to defend in vain the independence of his native land. To these
distinguished foreigners, who freely threw in their lot with American
revolutionary fortunes, was due much of that spirit and discipline which
fitted raw recruits and temperamental militiamen to cope with a military
power of the first rank.

=The Soldiers.=--As far as the British soldiers were concerned their
annals are short and simple. The regulars from the standing army who
were sent over at the opening of the contest, the recruits drummed up
by special efforts at home, and the thousands of Hessians bought
outright by King George presented few problems of management to the
British officers. These common soldiers were far away from home and
enlisted for the war. Nearly all of them were well disciplined and many
of them experienced in actual campaigns. The armies of King George
fought bravely, as the records of Bunker Hill, Brandywine, and Monmouth
demonstrate. Many a man and subordinate officer and, for that matter,
some of the high officers expressed a reluctance at fighting against
their own kin; but they obeyed orders.

The Americans, on the other hand, while they fought with grim
determination, as men fighting for their homes, were lacking in
discipline and in the experience of regular troops. When the war broke
in upon them, there were no common preparations for it. There was no
continental army; there were only local bands of militiamen, many of
them experienced in fighting but few of them "regulars" in the military
sense. Moreover they were volunteers serving for a short time,
unaccustomed to severe discipline, and impatient at the restraints
imposed on them by long and arduous campaigns. They were continually
leaving the service just at the most critical moments. "The militia,"
lamented Washington, "come in, you cannot tell how; go, you cannot tell
where; consume your provisions; exhaust your stores; and leave you at
last at a critical moment."

Again and again Washington begged Congress to provide for an army of
regulars enlisted for the war, thoroughly trained and paid according to
some definite plan. At last he was able to overcome, in part at least,
the chronic fear of civilians in Congress and to wring from that
reluctant body an agreement to grant half pay to all officers and a
bonus to all privates who served until the end of the war. Even this
scheme, which Washington regarded as far short of justice to the
soldiers, did not produce quick results. It was near the close of the
conflict before he had an army of well-disciplined veterans capable of
meeting British regulars on equal terms.

Though there were times when militiamen and frontiersmen did valiant and
effective work, it is due to historical accuracy to deny the
time-honored tradition that a few minutemen overwhelmed more numerous
forces of regulars in a seven years' war for independence. They did
nothing of the sort. For the victories of Bennington, Trenton, Saratoga,
and Yorktown there were the defeats of Bunker Hill, Long Island, White
Plains, Germantown, and Camden. Not once did an army of militiamen
overcome an equal number of British regulars in an open trial by battle.
"To bring men to be well acquainted with the duties of a soldier," wrote
Washington, "requires time.... To expect the same service from raw and
undisciplined recruits as from veteran soldiers is to expect what never
did and perhaps never will happen."

=How the War Was Won.=--Then how did the American army win the war? For
one thing there were delays and blunders on the part of the British
generals who, in 1775 and 1776, dallied in Boston and New York with
large bodies of regular troops when they might have been dealing
paralyzing blows at the scattered bands that constituted the American
army. "Nothing but the supineness or folly of the enemy could have saved
us," solemnly averred Washington in 1780. Still it is fair to say that
this apparent supineness was not all due to the British generals. The
ministers behind them believed that a large part of the colonists were
loyal and that compromise would be promoted by inaction rather than by a
war vigorously prosecuted. Victory by masterly inactivity was obviously
better than conquest, and the slighter the wounds the quicker the
healing. Later in the conflict when the seasoned forces of France were
thrown into the scale, the Americans themselves had learned many things
about the practical conduct of campaigns. All along, the British were
embarrassed by the problem of supplies. Their troops could not forage
with the skill of militiamen, as they were in unfamiliar territory. The
long oversea voyages were uncertain at best and doubly so when the
warships of France joined the American privateers in preying on supply
boats.

The British were in fact battered and worn down by a guerrilla war and
outdone on two important occasions by superior forces--at Saratoga and
Yorktown. Stern facts convinced them finally that an immense army, which
could be raised only by a supreme effort, would be necessary to subdue
the colonies if that hazardous enterprise could be accomplished at all.
They learned also that America would then be alienated, fretful, and the
scene of endless uprisings calling for an army of occupation. That was a
price which staggered even Lord North and George III. Moreover, there
were forces of opposition at home with which they had to reckon.

=Women and the War.=--At no time were the women of America indifferent
to the struggle for independence. When it was confined to the realm of
opinion they did their part in creating public sentiment. Mrs. Elizabeth
Timothee, for example, founded in Charleston, in 1773, a newspaper to
espouse the cause of the province. Far to the north the sister of James
Otis, Mrs. Mercy Warren, early begged her countrymen to rest their case
upon their natural rights, and in influential circles she urged the
leaders to stand fast by their principles. While John Adams was tossing
about with uncertainty at the Continental Congress, his wife was writing
letters to him declaring her faith in "independency."

When the war came down upon the country, women helped in every field. In
sustaining public sentiment they were active. Mrs. Warren with a
tireless pen combatted loyalist propaganda in many a drama and satire.
Almost every revolutionary leader had a wife or daughter who rendered
service in the "second line of defense." Mrs. Washington managed the
plantation while the General was at the front and went north to face the
rigors of the awful winter at Valley Forge--an inspiration to her
husband and his men. The daughter of Benjamin Franklin, Mrs. Sarah
Bache, while her father was pleading the American cause in France, set
the women of Pennsylvania to work sewing and collecting supplies. Even
near the firing line women were to be found, aiding the wounded, hauling
powder to the front, and carrying dispatches at the peril of their
lives.

In the economic sphere, the work of women was invaluable. They harvested
crops without enjoying the picturesque title of "farmerettes" and they
canned and preserved for the wounded and the prisoners of war. Of their
labor in spinning and weaving it is recorded: "Immediately on being cut
off from the use of English manufactures, the women engaged within their
own families in manufacturing various kinds of cloth for domestic use.
They thus kept their households decently clad and the surplus of their
labors they sold to such as chose to buy rather than make for
themselves. In this way the female part of families by their industry
and strict economy frequently supported the whole domestic circle,
evincing the strength of their attachment and the value of their
service."

For their war work, women were commended by high authorities on more
than one occasion. They were given medals and public testimonials even
as in our own day. Washington thanked them for their labors and paid
tribute to them for the inspiration and material aid which they had
given to the cause of independence.

THE FINANCES OF THE REVOLUTION

When the Revolution opened, there were thirteen little treasuries in
America but no common treasury, and from first to last the Congress was
in the position of a beggar rather than a sovereign. Having no authority
to lay and collect taxes directly and knowing the hatred of the
provincials for taxation, it resorted mainly to loans and paper money to
finance the war. "Do you think," boldly inquired one of the delegates,
"that I will consent to load my constituents with taxes when we can send
to the printer and get a wagon load of money, one quire of which will
pay for the whole?"

=Paper Money and Loans.=--Acting on this curious but appealing political
economy, Congress issued in June, 1776, two million dollars in bills of
credit to be redeemed by the states on the basis of their respective
populations. Other issues followed in quick succession. In all about
$241,000,000 of continental paper was printed, to which the several
states added nearly $210,000,000 of their own notes. Then came
interest-bearing bonds in ever increasing quantities. Several millions
were also borrowed from France and small sums from Holland and Spain. In
desperation a national lottery was held, producing meager results. The
property of Tories was confiscated and sold, bringing in about
$16,000,000. Begging letters were sent to the states asking them to
raise revenues for the continental treasury, but the states, burdened
with their own affairs, gave little heed.

=Inflation and Depreciation.=--As paper money flowed from the press, it
rapidly declined in purchasing power until in 1779 a dollar was worth
only two or three cents in gold or silver. Attempts were made by
Congress and the states to compel people to accept the notes at face
value; but these were like attempts to make water flow uphill.
Speculators collected at once to fatten on the calamities of the
republic. Fortunes were made and lost gambling on the prices of public
securities while the patriot army, half clothed, was freezing at Valley
Forge. "Speculation, peculation, engrossing, forestalling," exclaimed
Washington, "afford too many melancholy proofs of the decay of public
virtue. Nothing, I am convinced, but the depreciation of our currency
... aided by stock jobbing and party dissensions has fed the hopes of
the enemy."

=The Patriot Financiers.=--To the efforts of Congress in financing the
war were added the labors of private citizens. Hayn Solomon, a merchant
of Philadelphia, supplied members of Congress, including Madison,
Jefferson, and Monroe, and army officers, like Lee and Steuben, with
money for their daily needs. All together he contributed the huge sum of
half a million dollars to the American cause and died broken in purse,
if not in spirit, a British prisoner of war. Another Philadelphia
merchant, Robert Morris, won for himself the name of the "patriot
financier" because he labored night and day to find the money to meet
the bills which poured in upon the bankrupt government. When his own
funds were exhausted, he borrowed from his friends. Experienced in the
handling of merchandise, he created agencies at important points to
distribute supplies to the troops, thus displaying administrative as
well as financial talents.

[Illustration: ROBERT MORRIS]

Women organized "drives" for money, contributed their plate and their
jewels, and collected from door to door. Farmers took worthless paper in
return for their produce, and soldiers saw many a pay day pass without
yielding them a penny. Thus by the labors and sacrifices of citizens,
the issuance of paper money, lotteries, the floating of loans,
borrowings in Europe, and the impressment of supplies, the Congress
staggered through the Revolution like a pauper who knows not how his
next meal is to be secured but is continuously relieved at a crisis by a
kindly fate.

THE DIPLOMACY OF THE REVOLUTION

When the full measure of honor is given to the soldiers and sailors and
their commanding officers, the civilians who managed finances and
supplies, the writers who sustained the American spirit, and the women
who did well their part, there yet remains the duty of recognizing the
achievements of diplomacy. The importance of this field of activity was
keenly appreciated by the leaders in the Continental Congress. They were
fairly well versed in European history. They knew of the balance of
power and the sympathies, interests, and prejudices of nations and their
rulers. All this information they turned to good account, in opening
relations with continental countries and seeking money, supplies, and
even military assistance. For the transaction of this delicate business,
they created a secret committee on foreign correspondence as early as
1775 and prepared to send agents abroad.

=American Agents Sent Abroad.=--Having heard that France was inclining a
friendly ear to the American cause, the Congress, in March, 1776, sent a
commissioner to Paris, Silas Deane of Connecticut, often styled the
"first American diplomat." Later in the year a form of treaty to be
presented to foreign powers was drawn up, and Franklin, Arthur Lee, and
Deane were selected as American representatives at the court of "His
Most Christian Majesty the King of France." John Jay of New York was
chosen minister to Spain in 1779; John Adams was sent to Holland the
same year; and other agents were dispatched to Florence, Vienna, and
Berlin. The representative selected for St. Petersburg spent two
fruitless years there, "ignored by the court, living in obscurity and
experiencing nothing but humiliation and failure." Frederick the Great,
king of Prussia, expressed a desire to find in America a market for
Silesian linens and woolens, but, fearing England's command of the sea,
he refused to give direct aid to the Revolutionary cause.

=Early French Interest.=--The great diplomatic triumph of the Revolution
was won at Paris, and Benjamin Franklin was the hero of the occasion,
although many circumstances prepared the way for his success. Louis
XVI's foreign minister, Count de Vergennes, before the arrival of any
American representative, had brought to the attention of the king the
opportunity offered by the outbreak of the war between England and her
colonies. He showed him how France could redress her grievances and
"reduce the power and greatness of England"--the empire that in 1763 had
forced upon her a humiliating peace "at the price of our possessions,
of our commerce, and our credit in the Indies, at the price of Canada,
Louisiana, Isle Royale, Acadia, and Senegal." Equally successful in
gaining the king's interest was a curious French adventurer,
Beaumarchais, a man of wealth, a lover of music, and the author of two
popular plays, "Figaro" and "The Barber of Seville." These two men had
already urged upon the king secret aid for America before Deane appeared
on the scene. Shortly after his arrival they made confidential
arrangements to furnish money, clothing, powder, and other supplies to
the struggling colonies, although official requests for them were
officially refused by the French government.

=Franklin at Paris.=--When Franklin reached Paris, he was received only
in private by the king's minister, Vergennes. The French people,
however, made manifest their affection for the "plain republican" in
"his full dress suit of spotted Manchester velvet." He was known among
men of letters as an author, a scientist, and a philosopher of
extraordinary ability. His "Poor Richard" had thrice been translated
into French and was scattered in numerous editions throughout the
kingdom. People of all ranks--ministers, ladies at court, philosophers,
peasants, and stable boys--knew of Franklin and wished him success in
his mission. The queen, Marie Antoinette, fated to lose her head in a
revolution soon to follow, played with fire by encouraging "our dear
republican."

For the king of France, however, this was more serious business. England
resented the presence of this "traitor" in Paris, and Louis had to be
cautious about plunging into another war that might also end
disastrously. Moreover, the early period of Franklin's sojourn in Paris
was a dark hour for the American Revolution. Washington's brilliant
exploit at Trenton on Christmas night, 1776, and the battle with
Cornwallis at Princeton had been followed by the disaster at Brandywine,
the loss of Philadelphia, the defeat at Germantown, and the retirement
to Valley Forge for the winter of 1777-78. New York City and
Philadelphia--two strategic ports--were in British hands; the Hudson
and Delaware rivers were blocked; and General Burgoyne with his British
troops was on his way down through the heart of northern New York,
cutting New England off from the rest of the colonies. No wonder the
king was cautious. Then the unexpected happened. Burgoyne, hemmed in
from all sides by the American forces, his flanks harried, his foraging
parties beaten back, his supplies cut off, surrendered on October 17,
1777, to General Gates, who had superseded General Schuyler in time to
receive the honor.

=Treaties of Alliance and Commerce (1778).=--News of this victory,
placed by historians among the fifteen decisive battles of the world,
reached Franklin one night early in December while he and some friends
sat gloomily at dinner. Beaumarchais, who was with him, grasped at once
the meaning of the situation and set off to the court at Versailles with
such haste that he upset his coach and dislocated his arm. The king and
his ministers were at last convinced that the hour had come to aid the
Revolution. Treaties of commerce and alliance were drawn up and signed
in February, 1778. The independence of the United States was recognized
by France and an alliance was formed to guarantee that independence.
Combined military action was agreed upon and Louis then formally
declared war on England. Men who had, a few short years before, fought
one another in the wilderness of Pennsylvania or on the Plains of
Abraham, were now ranged side by side in a war on the Empire that Pitt
had erected and that George III was pulling down.

=Spain and Holland Involved.=--Within a few months, Spain, remembering
the steady decline of her sea power since the days of the Armada and
hoping to drive the British out of Gibraltar, once more joined the
concert of nations against England. Holland, a member of a league of
armed neutrals formed in protest against British searches on the high
seas, sent her fleet to unite with the forces of Spain, France, and
America to prey upon British commerce. To all this trouble for England
was added the danger of a possible revolt in Ireland, where the spirit
of independence was flaming up.

=The British Offer Terms to America.=--Seeing the colonists about to be
joined by France in a common war on the English empire, Lord North
proposed, in February, 1778, a renewal of negotiations. By solemn
enactment, Parliament declared its intention not to exercise the right
of imposing taxes within the colonies; at the same time it authorized
the opening of negotiations through commissioners to be sent to America.
A truce was to be established, pardons granted, objectionable laws
suspended, and the old imperial constitution, as it stood before the
opening of hostilities, restored to full vigor. It was too late. Events
had taken the affairs of America out of the hands of British
commissioners and diplomats.

=Effects of French Aid.=--The French alliance brought ships of war,
large sums of gold and silver, loads of supplies, and a considerable
body of trained soldiers to the aid of the Americans. Timely as was this
help, it meant no sudden change in the fortunes of war. The British
evacuated Philadelphia in the summer following the alliance, and
Washington's troops were encouraged to come out of Valley Forge. They
inflicted a heavy blow on the British at Monmouth, but the treasonable
conduct of General Charles Lee prevented a triumph. The recovery of
Philadelphia was offset by the treason of Benedict Arnold, the loss of
Savannah and Charleston (1780), and the defeat of Gates at Camden.

The full effect of the French alliance was not felt until 1781, when
Cornwallis went into Virginia and settled at Yorktown. Accompanied by
French troops Washington swept rapidly southward and penned the British
to the shore while a powerful French fleet shut off their escape by sea.
It was this movement, which certainly could not have been executed
without French aid, that put an end to all chance of restoring British
dominion in America. It was the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown that
caused Lord North to pace the floor and cry out: "It is all over! It is
all over!" What might have been done without the French alliance lies
hidden from mankind. What was accomplished with the help of French
soldiers, sailors, officers, money, and supplies, is known to all the
earth. "All the world agree," exultantly wrote Franklin from Paris to
General Washington, "that no expedition was ever better planned or
better executed. It brightens the glory that must accompany your name to
the latest posterity." Diplomacy as well as martial valor had its
reward.

PEACE AT LAST

=British Opposition to the War.=--In measuring the forces that led to
the final discomfiture of King George and Lord North, it is necessary to
remember that from the beginning to the end the British ministry at home
faced a powerful, informed, and relentless opposition. There were
vigorous protests, first against the obnoxious acts which precipitated
the unhappy quarrel, then against the way in which the war was waged,
and finally against the futile struggle to retain a hold upon the
American dominions. Among the members of Parliament who thundered
against the government were the first statesmen and orators of the land.
William Pitt, Earl of Chatham, though he deplored the idea of American
independence, denounced the government as the aggressor and rejoiced in
American resistance. Edmund Burke leveled his heavy batteries against
every measure of coercion and at last strove for a peace which, while
giving independence to America, would work for reconciliation rather
than estrangement. Charles James Fox gave the colonies his generous
sympathy and warmly championed their rights. Outside of the circle of
statesmen there were stout friends of the American cause like David
Hume, the philosopher and historian, and Catherine Macaulay, an author
of wide fame and a republican bold enough to encourage Washington in
seeing it through.

Against this powerful opposition, the government enlisted a whole army
of scribes and journalists to pour out criticism on the Americans and
their friends. Dr. Samuel Johnson, whom it employed in this business,
was so savage that even the ministers had to tone down his pamphlets
before printing them. Far more weighty was Edward Gibbon, who was in
time to win fame as the historian of the _Decline and Fall of the Roman
Empire_. He had at first opposed the government; but, on being given a
lucrative post, he used his sharp pen in its support, causing his
friends to ridicule him in these lines:

"King George, in a fright
Lest Gibbon should write
The story of England's disgrace,
Thought no way so sure
His pen to secure
As to give the historian a place."

=Lord North Yields.=--As time wore on, events bore heavily on the side
of the opponents of the government's measures. They had predicted that
conquest was impossible, and they had urged the advantages of a peace
which would in some measure restore the affections of the Americans.
Every day's news confirmed their predictions and lent support to their
arguments. Moreover, the war, which sprang out of an effort to relieve
English burdens, made those burdens heavier than ever. Military expenses
were daily increasing. Trade with the colonies, the greatest single
outlet for British goods and capital, was paralyzed. The heavy debts due
British merchants in America were not only unpaid but postponed into an
indefinite future. Ireland was on the verge of revolution. The French
had a dangerous fleet on the high seas. In vain did the king assert in
December, 1781, that no difficulties would ever make him consent to a
peace that meant American independence. Parliament knew better, and on
February 27, 1782, in the House of Commons was carried an address to the
throne against continuing the war. Burke, Fox, the younger Pitt, Barre,
and other friends of the colonies voted in the affirmative. Lord North
gave notice then that his ministry was at an end. The king moaned:
"Necessity made me yield."

In April, 1782, Franklin received word from the English government that
it was prepared to enter into negotiations leading to a settlement. This
was embarrassing. In the treaty of alliance with France, the United
States had promised that peace should be a joint affair agreed to by
both nations in open conference. Finding France, however, opposed to
some of their claims respecting boundaries and fisheries, the American
commissioners conferred with the British agents at Paris without
consulting the French minister. They actually signed a preliminary peace
draft before they informed him of their operations. When Vergennes
reproached him, Franklin replied that they "had been guilty of
neglecting _bienseance_ [good manners] but hoped that the great work
would not be ruined by a single indiscretion."

=The Terms of Peace (1783).=--The general settlement at Paris in 1783
was a triumph for America. England recognized the independence of the
United States, naming each state specifically, and agreed to boundaries
extending from the Atlantic to the Mississippi and from the Great Lakes
to the Floridas. England held Canada, Newfoundland, and the West Indies
intact, made gains in India, and maintained her supremacy on the seas.
Spain won Florida and Minorca but not the coveted Gibraltar. France
gained nothing important save the satisfaction of seeing England humbled
and the colonies independent.

The generous terms secured by the American commission at Paris called
forth surprise and gratitude in the United States and smoothed the way
for a renewal of commercial relations with the mother country. At the
same time they gave genuine anxiety to European diplomats. "This federal
republic is born a pigmy," wrote the Spanish ambassador to his royal
master. "A day will come when it will be a giant; even a colossus
formidable to these countries. Liberty of conscience and the facility
for establishing a new population on immense lands, as well as the
advantages of the new government, will draw thither farmers and artisans
from all the nations. In a few years we shall watch with grief the
tyrannical existence of the same colossus."

[Illustration: NORTH AMERICA ACCORDING TO THE TREATY OF 1783]

SUMMARY OF THE REVOLUTIONARY PERIOD

The independence of the American colonies was foreseen by many European
statesmen as they watched the growth of their population, wealth, and
power; but no one could fix the hour of the great event. Until 1763 the
American colonists lived fairly happily under British dominion. There
were collisions from time to time, of course. Royal governors clashed
with stiff-necked colonial legislatures. There were protests against the
exercise of the king's veto power in specific cases. Nevertheless, on
the whole, the relations between America and the mother country were
more amicable in 1763 than at any period under the Stuart regime which
closed in 1688.

The crash, when it came, was not deliberately willed by any one. It was
the product of a number of forces that happened to converge about 1763.
Three years before, there had come to the throne George III, a young,
proud, inexperienced, and stubborn king. For nearly fifty years his
predecessors, Germans as they were in language and interest, had allowed
things to drift in England and America. George III decided that he would
be king in fact as well as in name. About the same time England brought
to a close the long and costly French and Indian War and was staggering
under a heavy burden of debt and taxes. The war had been fought partly
in defense of the American colonies and nothing seemed more reasonable
to English statesmen than the idea that the colonies should bear part of
the cost of their own defense. At this juncture there came into
prominence, in royal councils, two men bent on taxing America and
controlling her trade, Grenville and Townshend. The king was willing,
the English taxpayers were thankful for any promise of relief, and
statesmen were found to undertake the experiment. England therefore set
out upon a new course. She imposed taxes upon the colonists, regulated
their trade and set royal officers upon them to enforce the law. This
action evoked protests from the colonists. They held a Stamp Act
Congress to declare their rights and petition for a redress of
grievances. Some of the more restless spirits rioted in the streets,
sacked the houses of the king's officers, and tore up the stamped paper.

Frightened by uprising, the English government drew back and repealed
the Stamp Act. Then it veered again and renewed its policy of
interference. Interference again called forth American protests.
Protests aroused sharper retaliation. More British regulars were sent
over to keep order. More irritating laws were passed by Parliament.
Rioting again appeared: tea was dumped in the harbor of Boston and
seized in the harbor of Charleston. The British answer was more force.
The response of the colonists was a Continental Congress for defense. An
unexpected and unintended clash of arms at Lexington and Concord in the
spring of 1775 brought forth from the king of England a proclamation:
"The Americans are rebels!"

The die was cast. The American Revolution had begun. Washington was made
commander-in-chief. Armies were raised, money was borrowed, a huge
volume of paper currency was issued, and foreign aid was summoned.
Franklin plied his diplomatic arts at Paris until in 1778 he induced
France to throw her sword into the balance. Three years later,
Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown. In 1783, by the formal treaty of
peace, George III acknowledged the independence of the United States.
The new nation, endowed with an imperial domain stretching from the
Atlantic Ocean to the Mississippi River, began its career among the
sovereign powers of the earth.

In the sphere of civil government, the results of the Revolution were
equally remarkable. Royal officers and royal authorities were driven
from the former dominions. All power was declared to be in the people.
All the colonies became states, each with its own constitution or plan
of government. The thirteen states were united in common bonds under the
Articles of Confederation. A republic on a large scale was instituted.
Thus there was begun an adventure in popular government such as the
world had never seen. Could it succeed or was it destined to break down
and be supplanted by a monarchy? The fate of whole continents hung upon
the answer.

=References=

J. Fiske, _The American Revolution_ (2 vols.).

H. Lodge, _Life of Washington_ (2 vols.).

W. Sumner, _The Financier and the Finances of the American Revolution_.

O. Trevelyan, _The American Revolution_ (4 vols.). A sympathetic account
by an English historian.

M.C. Tyler, _Literary History of the American Revolution_ (2 vols.).

C.H. Van Tyne, _The American Revolution_ (American Nation Series) and
_The Loyalists in the American Revolution_.

=Questions=

1. What was the non-importation agreement? By what body was it adopted?
Why was it revolutionary in character?

2. Contrast the work of the first and second Continental Congresses.

3. Why did efforts at conciliation fail?

4. Trace the growth of American independence from opinion to the sphere
of action.

5. Why is the Declaration of Independence an "immortal" document?

6. What was the effect of the Revolution on colonial governments? On
national union?

7. Describe the contest between "Patriots" and "Tories."

8. What topics are considered under "military affairs"? Discuss each in
detail.

9. Contrast the American forces with the British forces and show how the
war was won.

10. Compare the work of women in the Revolutionary War with their labors
in the World War (1917-18).

11. How was the Revolution financed?

12. Why is diplomacy important in war? Describe the diplomatic triumph
of the Revolution.

13. What was the nature of the opposition in England to the war?

14. Give the events connected with the peace settlement; the terms of
peace.

=Research Topics=

=The Spirit of America.=--Woodrow Wilson, _History of the American
People_, Vol. II, pp. 98-126.

=American Rights.=--Draw up a table showing all the principles laid down
by American leaders in (1) the Resolves of the First Continental
Congress, Macdonald, _Documentary Source Book_, pp. 162-166; (2) the
Declaration of the Causes and the Necessity of Taking Up Arms,
Macdonald, pp. 176-183; and (3) the Declaration of Independence.

=The Declaration of Independence.=--Fiske, _The American Revolution_,
Vol. I, pp. 147-197. Elson, _History of the United States_, pp. 250-254.

=Diplomacy and the French Alliance.=--Hart, _American History Told by
Contemporaries_, Vol. II, pp. 574-590. Fiske, Vol. II, pp. 1-24.
Callender, _Economic History of the United States_, pp. 159-168; Elson,
pp. 275-280.

=Biographical Studies.=--Washington, Franklin, Samuel Adams, Patrick
Henry, Thomas Jefferson--emphasizing the peculiar services of each.

=The Tories.=--Hart, _Contemporaries_, Vol. II, pp. 470-480.

=Valley Forge.=--Fiske, Vol. II, pp. 25-49.

=The Battles of the Revolution.=--Elson, pp. 235-317.

=An English View of the Revolution.=--Green, _Short History of England_,
Chap. X, Sect. 2.

=English Opinion and the Revolution.=--Trevelyan, _The American
Revolution_, Vol. III (or Part 2, Vol. II), Chaps. XXIV-XXVII.

PART III. THE UNION AND NATIONAL POLITICS

CHAPTER VII

THE FORMATION OF THE CONSTITUTION

THE PROMISE AND THE DIFFICULTIES OF AMERICA

The rise of a young republic composed of thirteen states, each governed
by officials popularly elected under constitutions drafted by "the plain
people," was the most significant feature of the eighteenth century. The
majority of the patriots whose labors and sacrifices had made this
possible naturally looked upon their work and pronounced it good. Those
Americans, however, who peered beneath the surface of things, saw that
the Declaration of Independence, even if splendidly phrased, and paper
constitutions, drawn by finest enthusiasm "uninstructed by experience,"
could not alone make the republic great and prosperous or even free. All
around them they saw chaos in finance and in industry and perils for the
immediate future.

=The Weakness of the Articles of Confederation.=--The government under
the Articles of Confederation had neither the strength nor the resources
necessary to cope with the problems of reconstruction left by the war.
The sole organ of government was a Congress composed of from two to
seven members from each state chosen as the legislature might direct and
paid by the state. In determining all questions, each state had one
vote--Delaware thus enjoying the same weight as Virginia. There was no
president to enforce the laws. Congress was given power to select a
committee of thirteen--one from each state--to act as an executive body
when it was not in session; but this device, on being tried out, proved
a failure. There was no system of national courts to which citizens and
states could appeal for the protection of their rights or through which
they could compel obedience to law. The two great powers of government,
military and financial, were withheld. Congress, it is true, could
authorize expenditures but had to rely upon the states for the payment
of contributions to meet its bills. It could also order the
establishment of an army, but it could only request the states to supply
their respective quotas of soldiers. It could not lay taxes nor bring
any pressure to bear upon a single citizen in the whole country. It
could act only through the medium of the state governments.

=Financial and Commercial Disorders.=--In the field of public finance,
the disorders were pronounced. The huge debt incurred during the war was
still outstanding. Congress was unable to pay either the interest or the
principal. Public creditors were in despair, as the market value of
their bonds sank to twenty-five or even ten cents on the dollar. The
current bills of Congress were unpaid. As some one complained, there was
not enough money in the treasury to buy pen and ink with which to record
the transactions of the shadow legislature. The currency was in utter
chaos. Millions of dollars in notes issued by Congress had become mere
trash worth a cent or two on the dollar. There was no other expression
of contempt so forceful as the popular saying: "not worth a
Continental." To make matters worse, several of the states were pouring
new streams of paper money from the press. Almost the only good money in
circulation consisted of English, French, and Spanish coins, and the
public was even defrauded by them because money changers were busy
clipping and filing away the metal. Foreign commerce was unsettled. The
entire British system of trade discrimination was turned against the
Americans, and Congress, having no power to regulate foreign commerce,
was unable to retaliate or to negotiate treaties which it could enforce.
Domestic commerce was impeded by the jealousies of the states, which
erected tariff barriers against their neighbors. The condition of the
currency made the exchange of money and goods extremely difficult, and,
as if to increase the confusion, backward states enacted laws hindering
the prompt collection of debts within their borders--an evil which
nothing but a national system of courts could cure.

=Congress in Disrepute.=--With treaties set at naught by the states, the
laws unenforced, the treasury empty, and the public credit gone, the
Congress of the United States fell into utter disrepute. It called upon
the states to pay their quotas of money into the treasury, only to be
treated with contempt. Even its own members looked upon it as a solemn
futility. Some of the ablest men refused to accept election to it, and
many who did take the doubtful honor failed to attend the sessions.
Again and again it was impossible to secure a quorum for the transaction
of business.

=Troubles of the State Governments.=--The state governments, free to
pursue their own course with no interference from without, had almost as
many difficulties as the Congress. They too were loaded with
revolutionary debts calling for heavy taxes upon an already restive
population. Oppressed by their financial burdens and discouraged by the
fall in prices which followed the return of peace, the farmers of
several states joined in a concerted effort and compelled their
legislatures to issue large sums of paper money. The currency fell in
value, but nevertheless it was forced on unwilling creditors to square
old accounts.

In every part of the country legislative action fluctuated violently.
Laws were made one year only to be repealed the next and reenacted the
third year. Lands were sold by one legislature and the sales were
canceled by its successor. Uncertainty and distrust were the natural
consequences. Men of substance longed for some power that would forbid
states to issue bills of credit, to make paper money legal tender in
payment of debts, or to impair the obligation of contracts. Men heavily
in debt, on the other hand, urged even more drastic action against
creditors.

So great did the discontent of the farmers in New Hampshire become in
1786 that a mob surrounded the legislature, demanding a repeal of the
taxes and the issuance of paper money. It was with difficulty that an
armed rebellion was avoided. In Massachusetts the malcontents, under the
leadership of Daniel Shays, a captain in the Revolutionary army,
organized that same year open resistance to the government of the state.
Shays and his followers protested against the conduct of creditors in
foreclosing mortgages upon the debt-burdened farmers, against the
lawyers for increasing the costs of legal proceedings, against the
senate of the state the members of which were apportioned among the
towns on the basis of the amount of taxes paid, against heavy taxes, and
against the refusal of the legislature to issue paper money. They seized
the towns of Worcester and Springfield and broke up the courts of
justice. All through the western part of the state the revolt spread,
sending a shock of alarm to every center and section of the young
republic. Only by the most vigorous action was Governor Bowdoin able to
quell the uprising; and when that task was accomplished, the state
government did not dare to execute any of the prisoners because they had
so many sympathizers. Moreover, Bowdoin and several members of the
legislature who had been most zealous in their attacks on the insurgents
were defeated at the ensuing election. The need of national assistance
for state governments in times of domestic violence was everywhere
emphasized by men who were opposed to revolutionary acts.

=Alarm over Dangers to the Republic.=--Leading American citizens,
watching the drift of affairs, were slowly driven to the conclusion that
the new ship of state so proudly launched a few years before was
careening into anarchy. "The facts of our peace and independence," wrote
a friend of Washington, "do not at present wear so promising an
appearance as I had fondly painted in my mind. The prejudices,
jealousies, and turbulence of the people at times almost stagger my
confidence in our political establishments; and almost occasion me to
think that they will show themselves unworthy of the noble prize for
which we have contended."

Washington himself was profoundly discouraged. On hearing of Shays's
rebellion, he exclaimed: "What, gracious God, is man that there should
be such inconsistency and perfidiousness in his conduct! It is but the
other day that we were shedding our blood to obtain the constitutions
under which we now live--constitutions of our own choice and making--and
now we are unsheathing our sword to overturn them." The same year he
burst out in a lament over rumors of restoring royal government. "I am
told that even respectable characters speak of a monarchical government
without horror. From thinking proceeds speaking. Hence to acting is
often but a single step. But how irresistible and tremendous! What a
triumph for our enemies to verify their predictions! What a triumph for
the advocates of despotism to find that we are incapable of governing
ourselves!"

=Congress Attempts Some Reforms.=--The Congress was not indifferent to
the events that disturbed Washington. On the contrary it put forth many
efforts to check tendencies so dangerous to finance, commerce,
industries, and the Confederation itself. In 1781, even before the
treaty of peace was signed, the Congress, having found out how futile
were its taxing powers, carried a resolution of amendment to the
Articles of Confederation, authorizing the levy of a moderate duty on
imports. Yet this mild measure was rejected by the states. Two years
later the Congress prepared another amendment sanctioning the levy of
duties on imports, to be collected this time by state officers and
applied to the payment of the public debt. This more limited proposal,
designed to save public credit, likewise failed. In 1786, the Congress
made a third appeal to the states for help, declaring that they had been
so irregular and so negligent in paying their quotas that further
reliance upon that mode of raising revenues was dishonorable and
dangerous.

THE CALLING OF A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

=Hamilton and Washington Urge Reform.=--The attempts at reform by the
Congress were accompanied by demand for, both within and without that
body, a convention to frame a new plan of government. In 1780, the
youthful Alexander Hamilton, realizing the weakness of the Articles, so
widely discussed, proposed a general convention for the purpose of
drafting a new constitution on entirely different principles. With
tireless energy he strove to bring his countrymen to his view.
Washington, agreeing with him on every point, declared, in a circular
letter to the governors, that the duration of the union would be short
unless there was lodged somewhere a supreme power "to regulate and
govern the general concerns of the confederated republic." The governor
of Massachusetts, disturbed by the growth of discontent all about him,
suggested to the state legislature in 1785 the advisability of a
national convention to enlarge the powers of the Congress. The
legislature approved the plan, but did not press it to a conclusion.

[Illustration: ALEXANDER HAMILTON]

=The Annapolis Convention.=--Action finally came from the South. The
Virginia legislature, taking things into its own hands, called a
conference of delegates at Annapolis to consider matters of taxation and
commerce. When the convention assembled in 1786, it was found that only
five states had taken the trouble to send representatives. The leaders
were deeply discouraged, but the resourceful Hamilton, a delegate from
New York, turned the affair to good account. He secured the adoption of
a resolution, calling upon the Congress itself to summon another
convention, to meet at Philadelphia.

=A National Convention Called (1787).=--The Congress, as tardy as ever,
at last decided in February, 1787, to issue the call. Fearing drastic
changes, however, it restricted the convention to "the sole and express
purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation." Jealous of its own
powers, it added that any alterations proposed should be referred to the
Congress and the states for their approval.

Every state in the union, except Rhode Island, responded to this call.
Indeed some of the states, having the Annapolis resolution before them,
had already anticipated the Congress by selecting delegates before the
formal summons came. Thus, by the persistence of governors,
legislatures, and private citizens, there was brought about the
long-desired national convention. In May, 1787, it assembled in
Philadelphia.

=The Eminent Men of the Convention.=--On the roll of that memorable
convention were fifty-five men, at least half of whom were acknowledged
to be among the foremost statesmen and thinkers in America. Every field
of statecraft was represented by them: war and practical management in
Washington, who was chosen president of the convention; diplomacy in
Franklin, now old and full of honor in his own land as well as abroad;
finance in Alexander Hamilton and Robert Morris; law in James Wilson of
Pennsylvania; the philosophy of government in James Madison, called the
"father of the Constitution." They were not theorists but practical men,
rich in political experience and endowed with deep insight into the
springs of human action. Three of them had served in the Stamp Act
Congress: Dickinson of Delaware, William Samuel Johnson of Connecticut,
and John Rutledge of South Carolina. Eight had been signers of the
Declaration of Independence: Read of Delaware, Sherman of Connecticut,
Wythe of Virginia, Gerry of Massachusetts, Franklin, Robert Morris,
George Clymer, and James Wilson of Pennsylvania. All but twelve had at
some time served in the Continental Congress and eighteen were members
of that body in the spring of 1787. Washington, Hamilton, Mifflin, and
Charles Pinckney had been officers in the Revolutionary army. Seven of
the delegates had gained political experience as governors of states.
"The convention as a whole," according to the historian Hildreth,
"represented in a marked manner the talent, intelligence, and
especially the conservative sentiment of the country."

THE FRAMING OF THE CONSTITUTION

=Problems Involved.=--The great problems before the convention were nine
in number: (1) Shall the Articles of Confederation be revised or a new
system of government constructed? (2) Shall the government be founded on
states equal in power as under the Articles or on the broader and deeper
foundation of population? (3) What direct share shall the people have in
the election of national officers? (4) What shall be the qualifications
for the suffrage? (5) How shall the conflicting interests of the
commercial and the planting states be balanced so as to safeguard the
essential rights of each? (6) What shall be the form of the new
government? (7) What powers shall be conferred on it? (8) How shall the
state legislatures be restrained from their attacks on property rights
such as the issuance of paper money? (9) Shall the approval of all the
states be necessary, as under the Articles, for the adoption and
amendment of the Constitution?

=Revision of the Articles or a New Government?=--The moment the first
problem was raised, representatives of the small states, led by William
Paterson of New Jersey, were on their feet. They feared that, if the
Articles were overthrown, the equality and rights of the states would be
put in jeopardy. Their protest was therefore vigorous. They cited the
call issued by the Congress in summoning the convention which
specifically stated that they were assembled for "the sole and express
purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation." They cited also
their instructions from their state legislatures, which authorized them
to "revise and amend" the existing scheme of government, not to make a
revolution in it. To depart from the authorization laid down by the
Congress and the legislatures would be to exceed their powers, they
argued, and to betray the trust reposed in them by their countrymen.

To their contentions, Randolph of Virginia replied: "When the salvation
of the republic is at stake, it would be treason to our trust not to
propose what we find necessary." Hamilton, reminding the delegates that
their work was still subject to the approval of the states, frankly said
that on the point of their powers he had no scruples. With the issue
clear, the convention cast aside the Articles as if they did not exist
and proceeded to the work of drawing up a new constitution, "laying its
foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such form"
as to the delegates seemed "most likely to affect their safety and
happiness."

=A Government Founded on States or on People?--The
Compromise.=--Defeated in their attempt to limit the convention to a
mere revision of the Articles, the spokesmen of the smaller states
redoubled their efforts to preserve the equality of the states. The
signal for a radical departure from the Articles on this point was given
early in the sessions when Randolph presented "the Virginia plan." He
proposed that the new national legislature consist of two houses, the
members of which were to be apportioned among the states according to
their wealth or free white population, as the convention might decide.
This plan was vehemently challenged. Paterson of New Jersey flatly
avowed that neither he nor his state would ever bow to such tyranny. As
an alternative, he presented "the New Jersey plan" calling for a
national legislature of one house representing states as such, not
wealth or people--a legislature in which all states, large or small,
would have equal voice. Wilson of Pennsylvania, on behalf of the more
populous states, took up the gauntlet which Paterson had thrown down. It
was absurd, he urged, for 180,000 men in one state to have the same
weight in national counsels as 750,000 men in another state. "The
gentleman from New Jersey," he said, "is candid. He declares his opinion
boldly.... I will be equally candid.... I will never confederate on his
principles." So the bitter controversy ran on through many exciting
sessions.

Greek had met Greek. The convention was hopelessly deadlocked and on the
verge of dissolution, "scarce held together by the strength of a hair,"
as one of the delegates remarked. A crash was averted only by a
compromise. Instead of a Congress of one house as provided by the
Articles, the convention agreed upon a legislature of two houses. In the
Senate, the aspirations of the small states were to be satisfied, for
each state was given two members in that body. In the formation of the
House of Representatives, the larger states were placated, for it was
agreed that the members of that chamber were to be apportioned among the
states on the basis of population, counting three-fifths of the slaves.

=The Question of Popular Election.=--The method of selecting federal
officers and members of Congress also produced an acrimonious debate
which revealed how deep-seated was the distrust of the capacity of the
people to govern themselves. Few there were who believed that no branch
of the government should be elected directly by the voters; still fewer
were there, however, who desired to see all branches so chosen. One or
two even expressed a desire for a monarchy. The dangers of democracy
were stressed by Gerry of Massachusetts: "All the evils we experience
flow from an excess of democracy. The people do not want virtue but are
the dupes of pretended patriots.... I have been too republican
heretofore but have been taught by experience the danger of a leveling
spirit." To the "democratic licentiousness of the state legislatures,"
Randolph sought to oppose a "firm senate." To check the excesses of
popular government Charles Pinckney of South Carolina declared that no
one should be elected President who was not worth $100,000 and that high
property qualifications should be placed on members of Congress and
judges. Other members of the convention were stoutly opposed to such
"high-toned notions of government." Franklin and Wilson, both from
Pennsylvania, vigorously championed popular election; while men like
Madison insisted that at least one part of the government should rest on
the broad foundation of the people.

Out of this clash of opinion also came compromise. One branch, the House
of Representatives, it was agreed, was to be elected directly by the
voters, while the Senators were to be elected indirectly by the state
legislatures. The President was to be chosen by electors selected as the
legislatures of the states might determine, and the judges of the
federal courts, supreme and inferior, by the President and the Senate.

=The Question of the Suffrage.=--The battle over the suffrage was sharp
but brief. Gouverneur Morris proposed that only land owners should be
permitted to vote. Madison replied that the state legislatures, which
had made so much trouble with radical laws, were elected by freeholders.
After the debate, the delegates, unable to agree on any property
limitations on the suffrage, decided that the House of Representatives
should be elected by voters having the "qualifications requisite for
electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature." Thus
they accepted the suffrage provisions of the states.

=The Balance between the Planting and the Commercial States.=--After the
debates had gone on for a few weeks, Madison came to the conclusion that
the real division in the convention was not between the large and the
small states but between the planting section founded on slave labor and
the commercial North. Thus he anticipated by nearly three-quarters of a
century "the irrepressible conflict." The planting states had neither
the free white population nor the wealth of the North. There were,
counting Delaware, six of them as against seven commercial states.
Dependent for their prosperity mainly upon the sale of tobacco, rice,
and other staples abroad, they feared that Congress might impose
restraints upon their enterprise. Being weaker in numbers, they were
afraid that the majority might lay an unfair burden of taxes upon them.

_Representation and Taxation._--The Southern members of the convention
were therefore very anxious to secure for their section the largest
possible representation in Congress, and at the same time to restrain
the taxing power of that body. Two devices were thought adapted to these
ends. One was to count the slaves as people when apportioning
representatives among the states according to their respective
populations; the other was to provide that direct taxes should be
apportioned among the states, in proportion not to their wealth but to
the number of their free white inhabitants. For obvious reasons the
Northern delegates objected to these proposals. Once more a compromise
proved to be the solution. It was agreed that not all the slaves but
three-fifths of them should be counted for both purposes--representation
and direct taxation.

_Commerce and the Slave Trade._--Southern interests were also involved
in the project to confer upon Congress the power to regulate interstate
and foreign commerce. To the manufacturing and trading states this was
essential. It would prevent interstate tariffs and trade jealousies; it
would enable Congress to protect American manufactures and to break
down, by appropriate retaliations, foreign discriminations against
American commerce. To the South the proposal was menacing because
tariffs might interfere with the free exchange of the produce of
plantations in European markets, and navigation acts might confine the
carrying trade to American, that is Northern, ships. The importation of
slaves, moreover, it was feared might be heavily taxed or immediately
prohibited altogether.

The result of this and related controversies was a debate on the merits
of slavery. Gouverneur Morris delivered his mind and heart on that
subject, denouncing slavery as a nefarious institution and the curse of
heaven on the states in which it prevailed. Mason of Virginia, a
slaveholder himself, was hardly less outspoken, saying: "Slavery
discourages arts and manufactures. The poor despise labor when performed
by slaves. They prevent the migration of whites who really strengthen
and enrich a country."

The system, however, had its defenders. Representatives from South
Carolina argued that their entire economic life rested on slave labor
and that the high death rate in the rice swamps made continuous
importation necessary. Ellsworth of Connecticut took the ground that
the convention should not meddle with slavery. "The morality or wisdom
of slavery," he said, "are considerations belonging to the states. What
enriches a part enriches the whole." To the future he turned an
untroubled face: "As population increases, poor laborers will be so
plenty as to render slaves useless. Slavery in time will not be a speck
in our country." Virginia and North Carolina, already overstocked with
slaves, favored prohibiting the traffic in them; but South Carolina was
adamant. She must have fresh supplies of slaves or she would not
federate.

So it was agreed that, while Congress might regulate foreign trade by
majority vote, the importation of slaves should not be forbidden before
the lapse of twenty years, and that any import tax should not exceed $10
a head. At the same time, in connection with the regulation of foreign
trade, it was stipulated that a two-thirds vote in the Senate should be
necessary in the ratification of treaties. A further concession to the
South was made in the provision for the return of runaway slaves--a
provision also useful in the North, where indentured servants were about
as troublesome as slaves in escaping from their masters.

=The Form of the Government.=--As to the details of the frame of
government and the grand principles involved, the opinion of the
convention ebbed and flowed, decisions being taken in the heat of
debate, only to be revoked and taken again.

_The Executive._--There was general agreement that there should be an
executive branch; for reliance upon Congress to enforce its own laws and
treaties had been a broken reed. On the character and functions of the
executive, however, there were many views. The New Jersey plan called
for a council selected by the Congress; the Virginia plan provided that
the executive branch should be chosen by the Congress but did not state
whether it should be composed of one or several persons. On this matter
the convention voted first one way and then another; finally it agreed
on a single executive chosen indirectly by electors selected as the
state legislatures might decide, serving for four years, subject to
impeachment, and endowed with regal powers in the command of the army
and the navy and in the enforcement of the laws.

_The Legislative Branch--Congress._--After the convention had made the
great compromise between the large and small commonwealths by giving
representation to states in the Senate and to population in the House,
the question of methods of election had to be decided. As to the House
of Representatives it was readily agreed that the members should be
elected by direct popular vote. There was also easy agreement on the
proposition that a strong Senate was needed to check the "turbulence" of
the lower house. Four devices were finally selected to accomplish this
purpose. In the first place, the Senators were not to be chosen directly
by the voters but by the legislatures of the states, thus removing their
election one degree from the populace. In the second place, their term
was fixed at six years instead of two, as in the case of the House. In
the third place, provision was made for continuity by having only
one-third of the members go out at a time while two-thirds remained in
service. Finally, it was provided that Senators must be at least thirty
years old while Representatives need be only twenty-five.

_The Judiciary._--The need for federal courts to carry out the law was
hardly open to debate. The feebleness of the Articles of Confederation
was, in a large measure, attributed to the want of a judiciary to hold
states and individuals in obedience to the laws and treaties of the
union. Nevertheless on this point the advocates of states' rights were
extremely sensitive. They looked with distrust upon judges appointed at
the national capital and emancipated from local interests and
traditions; they remembered with what insistence they had claimed
against Britain the right of local trial by jury and with what
consternation they had viewed the proposal to make colonial judges
independent of the assemblies in the matter of their salaries.
Reluctantly they yielded to the demand for federal courts, consenting at
first only to a supreme court to review cases heard in lower state
courts and finally to such additional inferior courts as Congress might
deem necessary.

_The System of Checks and Balances._--It is thus apparent that the
framers of the Constitution, in shaping the form of government, arranged
for a distribution of power among three branches, executive,
legislative, and judicial. Strictly speaking we might say four branches,
for the legislature, or Congress, was composed of two houses, elected in
different ways, and one of them, the Senate, was made a check on the
President through its power of ratifying treaties and appointments. "The
accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judicial, in the
same hands," wrote Madison, "whether of one, a few, or many, and whether
hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the
very definition of tyranny." The devices which the convention adopted to
prevent such a centralization of authority were exceedingly ingenious
and well calculated to accomplish the purposes of the authors.

The legislature consisted of two houses, the members of which were to be
apportioned on a different basis, elected in different ways, and to
serve for different terms. A veto on all its acts was vested in a
President elected in a manner not employed in the choice of either
branch of the legislature, serving for four years, and subject to
removal only by the difficult process of impeachment. After a law had
run the gantlet of both houses and the executive, it was subject to
interpretation and annulment by the judiciary, appointed by the
President with the consent of the Senate and serving for life. Thus it
was made almost impossible for any political party to get possession of
all branches of the government at a single popular election. As Hamilton
remarked, the friends of good government considered "every institution
calculated to restrain the excess of law making and to keep things in
the same state in which they happen to be at any given period as more
likely to do good than harm."

=The Powers of the Federal Government.=--On the question of the powers
to be conferred upon the new government there was less occasion for a
serious dispute. Even the delegates from the small states agreed with
those from Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia that new powers
should be added to those intrusted to Congress by the Articles of
Confederation. The New Jersey plan as well as the Virginia plan
recognized this fact. Some of the delegates, like Hamilton and Madison,
even proposed to give Congress a general legislative authority covering
all national matters; but others, frightened by the specter of
nationalism, insisted on specifying each power to be conferred and
finally carried the day.

_Taxation and Commerce._--There were none bold enough to dissent from
the proposition that revenue must be provided to pay current expenses
and discharge the public debt. When once the dispute over the
apportionment of direct taxes among the slave states was settled, it was
an easy matter to decide that Congress should have power to lay and
collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises. In this way the national
government was freed from dependence upon stubborn and tardy
legislatures and enabled to collect funds directly from citizens. There
were likewise none bold enough to contend that the anarchy of state
tariffs and trade discriminations should be longer endured. When the
fears of the planting states were allayed and the "bargain" over the
importation of slaves was reached, the convention vested in Congress the
power to regulate foreign and interstate commerce.

_National Defense._--The necessity for national defense was realized,
though the fear of huge military establishments was equally present. The
old practice of relying on quotas furnished by the state legislatures
was completely discredited. As in the case of taxes a direct authority
over citizens was demanded. Congress was therefore given full power to
raise and support armies and a navy. It could employ the state militia
when desirable; but it could at the same time maintain a regular army
and call directly upon all able-bodied males if the nature of a crisis
was thought to require it.

_The "Necessary and Proper" Clause._--To the specified power vested in
Congress by the Constitution, the advocates of a strong national
government added a general clause authorizing it to make all laws
"necessary and proper" for carrying into effect any and all of the
enumerated powers. This clause, interpreted by that master mind, Chief
Justice Marshall, was later construed to confer powers as wide as the
requirements of a vast country spanning a continent and taking its place
among the mighty nations of the earth.

=Restraints on the States.=--Framing a government and endowing it with
large powers were by no means the sole concern of the convention. Its
very existence had been due quite as much to the conduct of the state
legislatures as to the futilities of a paralyzed Continental Congress.
In every state, explains Marshall in his _Life of Washington_, there was
a party of men who had "marked out for themselves a more indulgent
course. Viewing with extreme tenderness the case of the debtor, their
efforts were unceasingly directed to his relief. To exact a faithful
compliance with contracts was, in their opinion, a harsh measure which
the people could not bear. They were uniformly in favor of relaxing the
administration of justice, of affording facilities for the payment of
debts, or of suspending their collection, and remitting taxes."

The legislatures under the dominance of these men had enacted paper
money laws enabling debtors to discharge their obligations more easily.
The convention put an end to such practices by providing that no state
should emit bills of credit or make anything but gold or silver legal
tender in the payment of debts. The state legislatures had enacted laws
allowing men to pay their debts by turning over to creditors land or
personal property; they had repealed the charter of an endowed college
and taken the management from the hands of the lawful trustees; and they
had otherwise interfered with the enforcement of private agreements. The
convention, taking notice of such matters, inserted a clause forbidding
states "to impair the obligation of contracts." The more venturous of
the radicals had in Massachusetts raised the standard of revolt against
the authorities of the state. The convention answered by a brief
sentence to the effect that the President of the United States, to be
equipped with a regular army, would send troops to suppress domestic
insurrections whenever called upon by the legislature or, if it was not
in session, by the governor of the state. To make sure that the
restrictions on the states would not be dead letters, the federal
Constitution, laws, and treaties were made the supreme law of the land,
to be enforced whenever necessary by a national judiciary and executive
against violations on the part of any state authorities.

=Provisions for Ratification and Amendment.=--When the frame of
government had been determined, the powers to be vested in it had been
enumerated, and the restrictions upon the states had been written into
the bond, there remained three final questions. How shall the
Constitution be ratified? What number of states shall be necessary to
put it into effect? How shall it be amended in the future?

On the first point, the mandate under which the convention was sitting
seemed positive. The Articles of Confederation were still in effect.
They provided that amendments could be made only by unanimous adoption
in Congress and the approval of all the states. As if to give force to
this provision of law, the call for the convention had expressly stated
that all alterations and revisions should be reported to Congress for
adoption or rejection, Congress itself to transmit the document
thereafter to the states for their review.

To have observed the strict letter of the law would have defeated the
purposes of the delegates, because Congress and the state legislatures
were openly hostile to such drastic changes as had been made. Unanimous
ratification, as events proved, would have been impossible. Therefore
the delegates decided that the Constitution should be sent to Congress
with the recommendation that it, in turn, transmit the document, not to
the state legislatures, but to conventions held in the states for the
special object of deciding upon ratification. This process was followed.
It was their belief that special conventions would be more friendly than
the state legislatures.

The convention was equally positive in dealing with the problem of the
number of states necessary to establish the new Constitution. Attempts
to change the Articles had failed because amendment required the
approval of every state and there was always at least one recalcitrant
member of the union. The opposition to a new Constitution was
undoubtedly formidable. Rhode Island had even refused to take part in
framing it, and her hostility was deep and open. So the convention cast
aside the provision of the Articles of Confederation which required
unanimous approval for any change in the plan of government; it decreed
that the new Constitution should go into effect when ratified by nine
states.

In providing for future changes in the Constitution itself the
convention also thrust aside the old rule of unanimous approval, and
decided that an amendment could be made on a two-thirds vote in both
houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states. This
change was of profound significance. Every state agreed to be bound in
the future by amendments duly adopted even in case it did not approve
them itself. America in this way set out upon the high road that led
from a league of states to a nation.

THE STRUGGLE OVER RATIFICATION

On September 17, 1787, the Constitution, having been finally drafted in
clear and simple language, a model to all makers of fundamental law, was
adopted. The convention, after nearly four months of debate in secret
session, flung open the doors and presented to the Americans the
finished plan for the new government. Then the great debate passed to
the people.

=The Opposition.=--Storms of criticism at once descended upon the
Constitution. "Fraudulent usurpation!" exclaimed Gerry, who had refused
to sign it. "A monster" out of the "thick veil of secrecy," declaimed a
Pennsylvania newspaper. "An iron-handed despotism will be the result,"
protested a third. "We, 'the low-born,'" sarcastically wrote a fourth,
"will now admit the 'six hundred well-born' immediately to establish
this most noble, most excellent, and truly divine constitution." The
President will become a king; Congress will be as tyrannical as
Parliament in the old days; the states will be swallowed up; the rights
of the people will be trampled upon; the poor man's justice will be lost
in the endless delays of the federal courts--such was the strain of the
protests against ratification.

[Illustration: AN ADVERTISEMENT OF _The Federalist_]

=Defense of the Constitution.=--Moved by the tempest of opposition,
Hamilton, Madison, and Jay took up their pens in defense of the
Constitution. In a series of newspaper articles they discussed and
expounded with eloquence, learning, and dignity every important clause
and provision of the proposed plan. These papers, afterwards collected
and published in a volume known as _The Federalist_, form the finest
textbook on the Constitution that has ever been printed. It takes its
place, moreover, among the wisest and weightiest treatises on government
ever written in any language in any time. Other men, not so gifted, were
no less earnest in their support of ratification. In private
correspondence, editorials, pamphlets, and letters to the newspapers,
they urged their countrymen to forget their partisanship and accept a
Constitution which, in spite of any defects great or small, was the
only guarantee against dissolution and warfare at home and dishonor and
weakness abroad.

[Illustration: CELEBRATING THE RATIFICATION]

=The Action of the State Conventions.=--Before the end of the year,
1787, three states had ratified the Constitution: Delaware and New
Jersey unanimously and Pennsylvania after a short, though savage,
contest. Connecticut and Georgia followed early the next year. Then came
the battle royal in Massachusetts, ending in ratification in February by
the narrow margin of 187 votes to 168. In the spring came the news that
Maryland and South Carolina were "under the new roof." On June 21, New
Hampshire, where the sentiment was at first strong enough to defeat the
Constitution, joined the new republic, influenced by the favorable
decision in Massachusetts. Swift couriers were sent to carry the news to
New York and Virginia, where the question of ratification was still
undecided. Nine states had accepted it and were united, whether more saw
fit to join or not.

Meanwhile, however, Virginia, after a long and searching debate, had
given her approval by a narrow margin, leaving New York as the next seat
of anxiety. In that state the popular vote for the delegates to the
convention had been clearly and heavily against ratification. Events
finally demonstrated the futility of resistance, and Hamilton by good
judgment and masterly arguments was at last able to marshal a majority
of thirty to twenty-seven votes in favor of ratification.

The great contest was over. All the states, except North Carolina and
Rhode Island, had ratified. "The sloop Anarchy," wrote an ebullient
journalist, "when last heard from was ashore on Union rocks."

=The First Election.=--In the autumn of 1788, elections were held to
fill the places in the new government. Public opinion was overwhelmingly
in favor of Washington as the first President. Yielding to the
importunities of friends, he accepted the post in the spirit of public
service. On April 30, 1789, he took the oath of office at Federal Hall
in New York City. "Long live George Washington, President of the United
States!" cried Chancellor Livingston as soon as the General had kissed
the Bible. The cry was caught by the assembled multitude and given back.
A new experiment in popular government was launched.

=References=

M. Farrand, _The Framing of the Constitution of the United States_.

P.L. Ford, _Essays on the Constitution of the United States_.

_The Federalist_ (in many editions).

G. Hunt, _Life of James Madison_.

A.C. McLaughlin, _The Confederation and the Constitution_ (American
Nation Series).

=Questions=

1. Account for the failure of the Articles of Confederation.

2. Explain the domestic difficulties of the individual states.

3. Why did efforts at reform by the Congress come to naught?

4. Narrate the events leading up to the constitutional convention.

5. Who were some of the leading men in the convention? What had been
their previous training?

6. State the great problems before the convention.

7. In what respects were the planting and commercial states opposed?
What compromises were reached?

8. Show how the "check and balance" system is embodied in our form of
government.

9. How did the powers conferred upon the federal government help cure
the defects of the Articles of Confederation?

10. In what way did the provisions for ratifying and amending the
Constitution depart from the old system?

11. What was the nature of the conflict over ratification?

=Research Topics=

=English Treatment of American Commerce.=--Callender, _Economic History
of the United States_, pp. 210-220.

=Financial Condition of the United States.=--Fiske, _Critical Period of
American History_, pp. 163-186.

=Disordered Commerce.=--Fiske, pp. 134-162.

=Selfish Conduct of the States.=--Callender, pp. 185-191.

=The Failure of the Confederation.=--Elson, _History of the United
States_, pp. 318-326.

=Formation of the Constitution.=--(1) The plans before the convention,
Fiske, pp. 236-249; (2) the great compromise, Fiske, pp. 250-255; (3)
slavery and the convention, Fiske, pp. 256-266; and (4) the frame of
government, Fiske, pp. 275-301; Elson, pp. 328-334.

=Biographical Studies.=--Look up the history and services of the leaders
in the convention in any good encyclopedia.

=Ratification of the Constitution.=--Hart, _History Told by
Contemporaries_, Vol. III, pp. 233-254; Elson, pp. 334-340.

=Source Study.=--Compare the Constitution and Articles of Confederation
under the following heads: (1) frame of government; (2) powers of
Congress; (3) limits on states; and (4) methods of amendment. Every line
of the Constitution should be read and re-read in the light of the
historical circumstances set forth in this chapter.

CHAPTER VIII

THE CLASH OF POLITICAL PARTIES

THE MEN AND MEASURES OF THE NEW GOVERNMENT

=Friends of the Constitution in Power.=--In the first Congress that
assembled after the adoption of the Constitution, there were eleven
Senators, led by Robert Morris, the financier, who had been delegates to
the national convention. Several members of the House of
Representatives, headed by James Madison, had also been at Philadelphia
in 1787. In making his appointments, Washington strengthened the new
system of government still further by a judicious selection of
officials. He chose as Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton,
who had been the most zealous for its success; General Knox, head of the
War Department, and Edmund Randolph, the Attorney-General, were likewise
conspicuous friends of the experiment. Every member of the federal
judiciary whom Washington appointed, from the Chief Justice, John Jay,
down to the justices of the district courts, had favored the
ratification of the Constitution; and a majority of them had served as
members of the national convention that framed the document or of the
state ratifying conventions. Only one man of influence in the new
government, Thomas Jefferson, the Secretary of State, was reckoned as a
doubter in the house of the faithful. He had expressed opinions both for
and against the Constitution; but he had been out of the country acting
as the minister at Paris when the Constitution was drafted and ratified.

=An Opposition to Conciliate.=--The inauguration of Washington amid the
plaudits of his countrymen did not set at rest all the political turmoil
which had been aroused by the angry contest over ratification. "The
interesting nature of the question," wrote John Marshall, "the equality
of the parties, the animation produced inevitably by ardent debate had a
necessary tendency to embitter the dispositions of the vanquished and to
fix more deeply in many bosoms their prejudices against a plan of
government in opposition to which all their passions were enlisted." The
leaders gathered around Washington were well aware of the excited state
of the country. They saw Rhode Island and North Carolina still outside
of the union.[1] They knew by what small margins the Constitution had
been approved in the great states of Massachusetts, Virginia, and New
York. They were equally aware that a majority of the state conventions,
in yielding reluctant approval to the Constitution, had drawn a number
of amendments for immediate submission to the states.

=The First Amendments--a Bill of Rights.=--To meet the opposition,
Madison proposed, and the first Congress adopted, a series of amendments
to the Constitution. Ten of them were soon ratified and became in 1791 a
part of the law of the land. These amendments provided, among other
things, that Congress could make no law respecting the establishment of
religion, abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or the right
of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a
redress of grievances. They also guaranteed indictment by grand jury and
trial by jury for all persons charged by federal officers with serious
crimes. To reassure those who still feared that local rights might be
invaded by the federal government, the tenth amendment expressly
provided that the powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the
states respectively or to the people. Seven years later, the eleventh
amendment was written in the same spirit as the first ten, after a
heated debate over the action of the Supreme Court in permitting a
citizen to bring a suit against "the sovereign state" of Georgia. The
new amendment was designed to protect states against the federal
judiciary by forbidding it to hear any case in which a state was sued by
a citizen.

=Funding the National Debt.=--Paper declarations of rights, however,
paid no bills. To this task Hamilton turned all his splendid genius. At
the very outset he addressed himself to the problem of the huge public
debt, daily mounting as the unpaid interest accumulated. In a _Report on
Public Credit_ under date of January 9, 1790, one of the first and
greatest of American state papers, he laid before Congress the outlines
of his plan. He proposed that the federal government should call in all
the old bonds, certificates of indebtedness, and other promises to pay
which had been issued by the Congress since the beginning of the
Revolution. These national obligations, he urged, should be put into one
consolidated debt resting on the credit of the United States; to the
holders of the old paper should be issued new bonds drawing interest at
fixed rates. This process was called "funding the debt." Such a
provision for the support of public credit, Hamilton insisted, would
satisfy creditors, restore landed property to its former value, and
furnish new resources to agriculture and commerce in the form of credit
and capital.

=Assumption and Funding of State Debts.=--Hamilton then turned to the
obligations incurred by the several states in support of the Revolution.
These debts he proposed to add to the national debt. They were to be
"assumed" by the United States government and placed on the same secure
foundation as the continental debt. This measure he defended not merely
on grounds of national honor. It would, as he foresaw, give strength to
the new national government by making all public creditors, men of
substance in their several communities, look to the federal, rather than
the state government, for the satisfaction of their claims.

=Funding at Face Value.=--On the question of the terms of consolidation,
assumption, and funding, Hamilton had a firm conviction. That millions
of dollars' worth of the continental and state bonds had passed out of
the hands of those who had originally subscribed their funds to the
support of the government or had sold supplies for the Revolutionary
army was well known. It was also a matter of common knowledge that a
very large part of these bonds had been bought by speculators at ruinous
figures--ten, twenty, and thirty cents on the dollar. Accordingly, it
had been suggested, even in very respectable quarters, that a
discrimination should be made between original holders and speculative
purchasers. Some who held this opinion urged that the speculators who
had paid nominal sums for their bonds should be reimbursed for their
outlays and the original holders paid the difference; others said that
the government should "scale the debt" by redeeming, not at full value
but at a figure reasonably above the market price. Against the
proposition Hamilton set his face like flint. He maintained that the
government was honestly bound to redeem every bond at its face value,
although the difficulty of securing revenue made necessary a lower rate
of interest on a part of the bonds and the deferring of interest on
another part.

=Funding and Assumption Carried.=--There was little difficulty in
securing the approval of both houses of Congress for the funding of the
national debt at full value. The bill for the assumption of state debts,
however, brought the sharpest division of opinions. To the Southern
members of Congress assumption was a gross violation of states' rights,
without any warrant in the Constitution and devised in the interest of
Northern speculators who, anticipating assumption and funding, had
bought up at low prices the Southern bonds and other promises to pay.
New England, on the other hand, was strongly in favor of assumption;
several representatives from that section were rash enough to threaten a
dissolution of the union if the bill was defeated. To this dispute was
added an equally bitter quarrel over the location of the national
capital, then temporarily at New York City.

[Illustration: FIRST UNITED STATES BANK AT PHILADELPHIA]

A deadlock, accompanied by the most surly feelings on both sides,
threatened the very existence of the young government. Washington and
Hamilton were thoroughly alarmed. Hearing of the extremity to which the
contest had been carried and acting on the appeal from the Secretary of
the Treasury, Jefferson intervened at this point. By skillful management
at a good dinner he brought the opposing leaders together; and thus once
more, as on many other occasions, peace was purchased and the union
saved by compromise. The bargain this time consisted of an exchange of
votes for assumption in return for votes for the capital. Enough
Southern members voted for assumption to pass the bill, and a majority
was mustered in favor of building the capital on the banks of the
Potomac, after locating it for a ten-year period at Philadelphia to
satisfy Pennsylvania members.

=The United States Bank.=--Encouraged by the success of his funding and
assumption measures, Hamilton laid before Congress a project for a great
United States Bank. He proposed that a private corporation be chartered
by Congress, authorized to raise a capital stock of $10,000,000
(three-fourths in new six per cent federal bonds and one-fourth in
specie) and empowered to issue paper currency under proper safeguards.
Many advantages, Hamilton contended, would accrue to the government from
this institution. The price of the government bonds would be increased,
thus enhancing public credit. A national currency would be created of
uniform value from one end of the land to the other. The branches of the
bank in various cities would make easy the exchange of funds so vital to
commercial transactions on a national scale. Finally, through the issue
of bank notes, the money capital available for agriculture and industry
would be increased, thus stimulating business enterprise. Jefferson
hotly attacked the bank on the ground that Congress had no power
whatever under the Constitution to charter such a private corporation.
Hamilton defended it with great cogency. Washington, after weighing all
opinions, decided in favor of the proposal. In 1791 the bill
establishing the first United States Bank for a period of twenty years
became a law.

=The Protective Tariff.=--A third part of Hamilton's program was the
protection of American industries. The first revenue act of 1789, though
designed primarily to bring money into the empty treasury, declared in
favor of the principle. The following year Washington referred to the
subject in his address to Congress. Thereupon Hamilton was instructed to
prepare recommendations for legislative action. The result, after a
delay of more than a year, was his _Report on Manufactures_, another
state paper worthy, in closeness of reasoning and keenness of
understanding, of a place beside his report on public credit. Hamilton
based his argument on the broadest national grounds: the protective
tariff would, by encouraging the building of factories, create a home
market for the produce of farms and plantations; by making the United
States independent of other countries in times of peace, it would double
its security in time of war; by making use of the labor of women and
children, it would turn to the production of goods persons otherwise
idle or only partly employed; by increasing the trade between the North
and South it would strengthen the links of union and add to political
ties those of commerce and intercourse. The revenue measure of 1792 bore
the impress of these arguments.

THE RISE OF POLITICAL PARTIES

=Dissensions over Hamilton's Measures.=--Hamilton's plans, touching
deeply as they did the resources of individuals and the interests of the
states, awakened alarm and opposition. Funding at face value, said his
critics, was a government favor to speculators; the assumption of state
debts was a deep design to undermine the state governments; Congress had
no constitutional power to create a bank; the law creating the bank
merely allowed a private corporation to make paper money and lend it at
a high rate of interest; and the tariff was a tax on land and labor for
the benefit of manufacturers.

Hamilton's reply to this bill of indictment was simple and
straightforward. Some rascally speculators had profited from the funding
of the debt at face value, but that was only an incident in the
restoration of public credit. In view of the jealousies of the states it
was a good thing to reduce their powers and pretensions. The
Constitution was not to be interpreted narrowly but in the full light of
national needs. The bank would enlarge the amount of capital so sorely
needed to start up American industries, giving markets to farmers and
planters. The tariff by creating a home market and increasing
opportunities for employment would benefit both land and labor. Out of
such wise policies firmly pursued by the government, he concluded, were
bound to come strength and prosperity for the new government at home,
credit and power abroad. This view Washington fully indorsed, adding
the weight of his great name to the inherent merits of the measures
adopted under his administration.

=The Sharpness of the Partisan Conflict.=--As a result of the clash of
opinion, the people of the country gradually divided into two parties:
Federalists and Anti-Federalists, the former led by Hamilton, the latter
by Jefferson. The strength of the Federalists lay in the cities--Boston,
Providence, Hartford, New York, Philadelphia, Charleston--among the
manufacturing, financial, and commercial groups of the population who
were eager to extend their business operations. The strength of the
Anti-Federalists lay mainly among the debt-burdened farmers who feared
the growth of what they called "a money power" and planters in all
sections who feared the dominance of commercial and manufacturing
interests. The farming and planting South, outside of the few towns,
finally presented an almost solid front against assumption, the bank,
and the tariff. The conflict between the parties grew steadily in
bitterness, despite the conciliatory and engaging manner in which
Hamilton presented his cause in his state papers and despite the
constant efforts of Washington to soften the asperity of the
contestants.

=The Leadership and Doctrines of Jefferson.=--The party dispute had not
gone far before the opponents of the administration began to look to
Jefferson as their leader. Some of Hamilton's measures he had approved,
declaring afterward that he did not at the time understand their
significance. Others, particularly the bank, he fiercely assailed. More
than once, he and Hamilton, shaking violently with anger, attacked each
other at cabinet meetings, and nothing short of the grave and dignified
pleas of Washington prevented an early and open break between them. In
1794 it finally came. Jefferson resigned as Secretary of State and
retired to his home in Virginia to assume, through correspondence and
negotiation, the leadership of the steadily growing party of opposition.

Shy and modest in manner, halting in speech, disliking the turmoil of
public debate, and deeply interested in science and philosophy,
Jefferson was not very well fitted for the strenuous life of political
contest. Nevertheless, he was an ambitious and shrewd negotiator. He was
also by honest opinion and matured conviction the exact opposite of
Hamilton. The latter believed in a strong, active, "high-toned"
government, vigorously compelling in all its branches. Jefferson looked
upon such government as dangerous to the liberties of citizens and
openly avowed his faith in the desirability of occasional popular
uprisings. Hamilton distrusted the people. "Your people is a great
beast," he is reported to have said. Jefferson professed his faith in
the people with an abandon that was considered reckless in his time.

On economic matters, the opinions of the two leaders were also
hopelessly at variance. Hamilton, while cherishing agriculture, desired
to see America a great commercial and industrial nation. Jefferson was
equally set against this course for his country. He feared the
accumulation of riches and the growth of a large urban working class.
The mobs of great cities, he said, are sores on the body politic;
artisans are usually the dangerous element that make revolutions;
workshops should be kept in Europe and with them the artisans with their
insidious morals and manners. The only substantial foundation for a
republic, Jefferson believed to be agriculture. The spirit of
independence could be kept alive only by free farmers, owning the land
they tilled and looking to the sun in heaven and the labor of their
hands for their sustenance. Trusting as he did in the innate goodness of
human nature when nourished on a free soil, Jefferson advocated those
measures calculated to favor agriculture and to enlarge the rights of
persons rather than the powers of government. Thus he became the
champion of the individual against the interference of the government,
and an ardent advocate of freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and
freedom of scientific inquiry. It was, accordingly, no mere factious
spirit that drove him into opposition to Hamilton.

=The Whisky Rebellion.=--The political agitation of the Anti-Federalists
was accompanied by an armed revolt against the government in 1794. The
occasion for this uprising was another of Hamilton's measures, a law
laying an excise tax on distilled spirits, for the purpose of increasing
the revenue needed to pay the interest on the funded debt. It so
happened that a very considerable part of the whisky manufactured in the
country was made by the farmers, especially on the frontier, in their
own stills. The new revenue law meant that federal officers would now
come into the homes of the people, measure their liquor, and take the
tax out of their pockets. All the bitterness which farmers felt against
the fiscal measures of the government was redoubled. In the western
districts of Pennsylvania, Virginia, and North Carolina, they refused to
pay the tax. In Pennsylvania, some of them sacked and burned the houses
of the tax collectors, as the Revolutionists thirty years before had
mobbed the agents of King George sent over to sell stamps. They were in
a fair way to nullify the law in whole districts when Washington called
out the troops to suppress "the Whisky Rebellion." Then the movement
collapsed; but it left behind a deep-seated resentment which flared up
in the election of several obdurate Anti-Federalist Congressmen from the
disaffected regions.

FOREIGN INFLUENCES AND DOMESTIC POLITICS

=The French Revolution.=--In this exciting period, when all America was
distracted by partisan disputes, a storm broke in Europe--the
epoch-making French Revolution--which not only shook the thrones of the
Old World but stirred to its depths the young republic of the New World.
The first scene in this dramatic affair occurred in the spring of 1789,
a few days after Washington was inaugurated. The king of France, Louis
XVI, driven into bankruptcy by extravagance and costly wars, was forced
to resort to his people for financial help. Accordingly he called, for
the first time in more than one hundred fifty years, a meeting of the
national parliament, the "Estates General," composed of representatives
of the "three estates"--the clergy, nobility, and commoners. Acting
under powerful leaders, the commoners, or "third estate," swept aside
the clergy and nobility and resolved themselves into a national
assembly. This stirred the country to its depths.

[Illustration: _From an old print_

LOUIS XVI IN THE HANDS OF THE MOB]

Great events followed in swift succession. On July 14, 1789, the
Bastille, an old royal prison, symbol of the king's absolutism, was
stormed by a Paris crowd and destroyed. On the night of August 4, the
feudal privileges of the nobility were abolished by the national
assembly amid great excitement. A few days later came the famous
Declaration of the Rights of Man, proclaiming the sovereignty of the
people and the privileges of citizens. In the autumn of 1791, Louis XVI
was forced to accept a new constitution for France vesting the
legislative power in a popular assembly. Little disorder accompanied
these startling changes. To all appearances a peaceful revolution had
stripped the French king of his royal prerogatives and based the
government of his country on the consent of the governed.

=American Influence in France.=--In undertaking their great political
revolt the French had been encouraged by the outcome of the American
Revolution. Officers and soldiers, who had served in the American war,
reported to their French countrymen marvelous tales. At the frugal table
of General Washington, in council with the unpretentious Franklin, or at
conferences over the strategy of war, French noblemen of ancient lineage
learned to respect both the talents and the simple character of the
leaders in the great republican commonwealth beyond the seas. Travelers,
who had gone to see the experiment in republicanism with their own eyes,
carried home to the king and ruling class stories of an astounding
system of popular government.

On the other hand the dalliance with American democracy was regarded by
French conservatives as playing with fire. "When we think of the false
ideas of government and philanthropy," wrote one of Lafayette's aides,
"which these youths acquired in America and propagated in France with so
much enthusiasm and such deplorable success--for this mania of imitation
powerfully aided the Revolution, though it was not the sole cause of
it--we are bound to confess that it would have been better, both for
themselves and for us, if these young philosophers in red-heeled shoes
had stayed at home in attendance on the court."

=Early American Opinion of the French Revolution.=--So close were the
ties between the two nations that it is not surprising to find every
step in the first stages of the French Revolution greeted with applause
in the United States. "Liberty will have another feather in her cap,"
exultantly wrote a Boston editor. "In no part of the globe," soberly
wrote John Marshall, "was this revolution hailed with more joy than in
America.... But one sentiment existed." The main key to the Bastille,
sent to Washington as a memento, was accepted as "a token of the
victory gained by liberty." Thomas Paine saw in the great event "the
first ripe fruits of American principles transplanted into Europe."
Federalists and Anti-Federalists regarded the new constitution of France
as another vindication of American ideals.

=The Reign of Terror.=--While profuse congratulations were being
exchanged, rumors began to come that all was not well in France. Many
noblemen, enraged at the loss of their special privileges, fled into
Germany and plotted an invasion of France to overthrow the new system of
government. Louis XVI entered into negotiations with his brother
monarchs on the continent to secure their help in the same enterprise,
and he finally betrayed to the French people his true sentiments by
attempting to escape from his kingdom, only to be captured and taken
back to Paris in disgrace.

A new phase of the revolution now opened. The working people, excluded
from all share in the government by the first French constitution,
became restless, especially in Paris. Assembling on the Champs de Mars,
a great open field, they signed a petition calling for another
constitution giving them the suffrage. When told to disperse, they
refused and were fired upon by the national guard. This "massacre," as
it was called, enraged the populace. A radical party, known as
"Jacobins," then sprang up, taking its name from a Jacobin monastery in
which it held its sessions. In a little while it became the master of
the popular convention convoked in September, 1792. The monarchy was
immediately abolished and a republic established. On January 21, 1793,
Louis was sent to the scaffold. To the war on Austria, already raging,
was added a war on England. Then came the Reign of Terror, during which
radicals in possession of the convention executed in large numbers
counter-revolutionists and those suspected of sympathy with the
monarchy. They shot down peasants who rose in insurrection against their
rule and established a relentless dictatorship. Civil war followed.
Terrible atrocities were committed on both sides in the name of liberty,
and in the name of monarchy. To Americans of conservative temper it now
seemed that the Revolution, so auspiciously begun, had degenerated into
anarchy and mere bloodthirsty strife.

=Burke Summons the World to War on France.=--In England, Edmund Burke
led the fight against the new French principles which he feared might
spread to all Europe. In his _Reflections on the French Revolution_,
written in 1790, he attacked with terrible wrath the whole program of
popular government; he called for war, relentless war, upon the French
as monsters and outlaws; he demanded that they be reduced to order by
the restoration of the king to full power under the protection of the
arms of European nations.

=Paine's Defense of the French Revolution.=--To counteract the campaign
of hate against the French, Thomas Paine replied to Burke in another of
his famous tracts, _The Rights of Man_, which was given to the American
public in an edition containing a letter of approval from Jefferson.
Burke, said Paine, had been mourning about the glories of the French
monarchy and aristocracy but had forgotten the starving peasants and the
oppressed people; had wept over the plumage and neglected the dying
bird. Burke had denied the right of the French people to choose their
own governors, blandly forgetting that the English government in which
he saw final perfection itself rested on two revolutions. He had boasted
that the king of England held his crown in contempt of the democratic
societies. Paine answered: "If I ask a man in America if he wants a
king, he retorts and asks me if I take him for an idiot." To the charge
that the doctrines of the rights of man were "new fangled," Paine
replied that the question was not whether they were new or old but
whether they were right or wrong. As to the French disorders and
difficulties, he bade the world wait to see what would be brought forth
in due time.

=The Effect of the French Revolution on American Politics.=--The course
of the French Revolution and the controversies accompanying it,
exercised a profound influence on the formation of the first political
parties in America. The followers of Hamilton, now proud of the name
"Federalists," drew back in fright as they heard of the cruel deeds
committed during the Reign of Terror. They turned savagely upon the
revolutionists and their friends in America, denouncing as "Jacobin"
everybody who did not condemn loudly enough the proceedings of the
French Republic. A Massachusetts preacher roundly assailed "the
atheistical, anarchical, and in other respects immoral principles of the
French Republicans"; he then proceeded with equal passion to attack
Jefferson and the Anti-Federalists, whom he charged with spreading false
French propaganda and betraying America. "The editors, patrons, and
abettors of these vehicles of slander," he exclaimed, "ought to be
considered and treated as enemies to their country.... Of all traitors
they are the most aggravatedly criminal; of all villains, they are the
most infamous and detestable."

The Anti-Federalists, as a matter of fact, were generally favorable to
the Revolution although they deplored many of the events associated with
it. Paine's pamphlet, indorsed by Jefferson, was widely read. Democratic
societies, after the fashion of French political clubs, arose in the
cities; the coalition of European monarchs against France was denounced
as a coalition against the very principles of republicanism; and the
execution of Louis XVI was openly celebrated at a banquet in
Philadelphia. Harmless titles, such as "Sir," "the Honorable," and "His
Excellency," were decried as aristocratic and some of the more excited
insisted on adopting the French title, "Citizen," speaking, for example,
of "Citizen Judge" and "Citizen Toastmaster." Pamphlets in defense of
the French streamed from the press, while subsidized newspapers kept the
propaganda in full swing.

=The European War Disturbs American Commerce.=--This battle of wits, or
rather contest in calumny, might have gone on indefinitely in America
without producing any serious results, had it not been for the war
between England and France, then raging. The English, having command of
the seas, claimed the right to seize American produce bound for French
ports and to confiscate American ships engaged in carrying French goods.
Adding fuel to a fire already hot enough, they began to search American
ships and to carry off British-born sailors found on board American
vessels.

=The French Appeal for Help.=--At the same time the French Republic
turned to the United States for aid in its war on England and sent over
as its diplomatic representative "Citizen" Genet, an ardent supporter of
the new order. On his arrival at Charleston, he was greeted with fervor
by the Anti-Federalists. As he made his way North, he was wined and
dined and given popular ovations that turned his head. He thought the
whole country was ready to join the French Republic in its contest with
England. Genet therefore attempted to use the American ports as the base
of operations for French privateers preying on British merchant ships;
and he insisted that the United States was in honor bound to help France
under the treaty of 1778.

=The Proclamation of Neutrality and the Jay Treaty.=--Unmoved by the
rising tide of popular sympathy for France, Washington took a firm
course. He received Genet coldly. The demand that the United States aid
France under the old treaty of alliance he answered by proclaiming the
neutrality of America and warning American citizens against hostile acts
toward either France or England. When Genet continued to hold meetings,
issue manifestoes, and stir up the people against England, Washington
asked the French government to recall him. This act he followed up by
sending the Chief Justice, John Jay, on a pacific mission to England.

The result was the celebrated Jay treaty of 1794. By its terms Great
Britain agreed to withdraw her troops from the western forts where they
had been since the war for independence and to grant certain slight
trade concessions. The chief sources of bitterness--the failure of the
British to return slaves carried off during the Revolution, the seizure
of American ships, and the impressment of sailors--were not touched,
much to the distress of everybody in America, including loyal
Federalists. Nevertheless, Washington, dreading an armed conflict with
England, urged the Senate to ratify the treaty. The weight of his
influence carried the day.

At this, the hostility of the Anti-Federalists knew no bounds. Jefferson
declared the Jay treaty "an infamous act which is really nothing more
than an alliance between England and the Anglo-men of this country,
against the legislature and the people of the United States." Hamilton,
defending it with his usual courage, was stoned by a mob in New York and
driven from the platform with blood streaming from his face. Jay was
burned in effigy. Even Washington was not spared. The House of
Representatives was openly hostile. To display its feelings, it called
upon the President for the papers relative to the treaty negotiations,
only to be more highly incensed by his flat refusal to present them, on
the ground that the House did not share in the treaty-making power.

=Washington Retires from Politics.=--Such angry contests confirmed the
President in his slowly maturing determination to retire at the end of
his second term in office. He did not believe that a third term was
unconstitutional or improper; but, worn out by his long and arduous
labors in war and in peace and wounded by harsh attacks from former
friends, he longed for the quiet of his beautiful estate at Mount
Vernon.

In September, 1796, on the eve of the presidential election, Washington
issued his Farewell Address, another state paper to be treasured and
read by generations of Americans to come. In this address he directed
the attention of the people to three subjects of lasting interest. He
warned them against sectional jealousies. He remonstrated against the
spirit of partisanship, saying that in government "of the popular
character, in government purely elective, it is a spirit not to be
encouraged." He likewise cautioned the people against "the insidious
wiles of foreign influence," saying: "Europe has a set of primary
interests which to us have none or a very remote relation. Hence she
must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are
essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it would be
unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary
vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions
of her friendships or enmities.... Why forego the advantages of so
peculiar a situation?... It is our true policy to steer clear of
permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.... Taking
care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, on a
respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary
alliances for extraordinary emergencies."

=The Campaign of 1796--Adams Elected.=--On hearing of the retirement of
Washington, the Anti-Federalists cast off all restraints. In honor of
France and in opposition to what they were pleased to call the
monarchical tendencies of the Federalists, they boldly assumed the name
"Republican"; the term "Democrat," then applied only to obscure and
despised radicals, had not come into general use. They selected
Jefferson as their candidate for President against John Adams, the
Federalist nominee, and carried on such a spirited campaign that they
came within four votes of electing him.

The successful candidate, Adams, was not fitted by training or opinion
for conciliating a determined opposition. He was a reserved and studious
man. He was neither a good speaker nor a skillful negotiator. In one of
his books he had declared himself in favor of "government by an
aristocracy of talents and wealth"--an offense which the Republicans
never forgave. While John Marshall found him "a sensible, plain, candid,
good-tempered man," Jefferson could see in him nothing but a "monocrat"
and "Anglo-man." Had it not been for the conduct of the French
government, Adams would hardly have enjoyed a moment's genuine
popularity during his administration.

=The Quarrel with France.=--The French Directory, the executive
department established under the constitution of 1795, managed, however,
to stir the anger of Republicans and Federalists alike. It regarded the
Jay treaty as a rebuke to France and a flagrant violation of obligations
solemnly registered in the treaty of 1778. Accordingly it refused to
receive the American minister, treated him in a humiliating way, and
finally told him to leave the country. Overlooking this affront in his
anxiety to maintain peace, Adams dispatched to France a commission of
eminent men with instructions to reach an understanding with the French
Republic. On their arrival, they were chagrined to find, instead of a
decent reception, an indirect demand for an apology respecting the past
conduct of the American government, a payment in cash, and an annual
tribute as the price of continued friendship. When the news of this
affair reached President Adams, he promptly laid it before Congress,
referring to the Frenchmen who had made the demands as "Mr. X, Mr. Y,
and Mr. Z."

This insult, coupled with the fact that French privateers, like the
British, were preying upon American commerce, enraged even the
Republicans who had been loudest in the profession of their French
sympathies. They forgot their wrath over the Jay treaty and joined with
the Federalists in shouting: "Millions for defense, not a cent for
tribute!" Preparations for war were made on every hand. Washington was
once more called from Mount Vernon to take his old position at the head
of the army. Indeed, fighting actually began upon the high seas and went
on without a formal declaration of war until the year 1800. By that time
the Directory had been overthrown. A treaty was readily made with
Napoleon, the First Consul, who was beginning his remarkable career as
chief of the French Republic, soon to be turned into an empire.

=Alien and Sedition Laws.=--Flushed with success, the Federalists
determined, if possible, to put an end to radical French influence in
America and to silence Republican opposition. They therefore passed two
drastic laws in the summer of 1798: the Alien and Sedition Acts.

The first of these measures empowered the President to expel from the
country or to imprison any alien whom he regarded as "dangerous" or "had
reasonable grounds to suspect" of "any treasonable or secret
machinations against the government."

The second of the measures, the Sedition Act, penalized not only those
who attempted to stir up unlawful combinations against the government
but also every one who wrote, uttered, or published "any false,
scandalous, and malicious writing ... against the government of the
United States or either House of Congress, or the President of the
United States, with intent to defame said government ... or to bring
them or either of them into contempt or disrepute." This measure was
hurried through Congress in spite of the opposition and the clear
provision in the Constitution that Congress shall make no law abridging
the freedom of speech or of the press. Even many Federalists feared the
consequences of the action. Hamilton was alarmed when he read the bill,
exclaiming: "Let us not establish a tyranny. Energy is a very different
thing from violence." John Marshall told his friends in Virginia that,
had he been in Congress, he would have opposed the two bills because he
thought them "useless" and "calculated to create unnecessary discontents
and jealousies."

The Alien law was not enforced; but it gave great offense to the Irish
and French whose activities against the American government's policy
respecting Great Britain put them in danger of prison. The Sedition law,
on the other hand, was vigorously applied. Several editors of Republican
newspapers soon found themselves in jail or broken by ruinous fines for
their caustic criticisms of the Federalist President and his policies.
Bystanders at political meetings, who uttered sentiments which, though
ungenerous and severe, seem harmless enough now, were hurried before
Federalist judges and promptly fined and imprisoned. Although the
prosecutions were not numerous, they aroused a keen resentment. The
Republicans were convinced that their political opponents, having
saddled upon the country Hamilton's fiscal system and the British
treaty, were bent on silencing all censure. The measures therefore had
exactly the opposite effect from that which their authors intended.
Instead of helping the Federalist party, they made criticism of it more
bitter than ever.

=The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.=--Jefferson was quick to take
advantage of the discontent. He drafted a set of resolutions declaring
the Sedition law null and void, as violating the federal Constitution.
His resolutions were passed by the Kentucky legislature late in 1798,
signed by the governor, and transmitted to the other states for their
consideration. Though receiving unfavorable replies from a number of
Northern states, Kentucky the following year reaffirmed its position and
declared that the nullification of all unconstitutional acts of Congress
was the rightful remedy to be used by the states in the redress of
grievances. It thus defied the federal government and announced a
doctrine hostile to nationality and fraught with terrible meaning for
the future. In the neighboring state of Virginia, Madison led a movement
against the Alien and Sedition laws. He induced the legislature to pass
resolutions condemning the acts as unconstitutional and calling upon the
other states to take proper means to preserve their rights and the
rights of the people.

=The Republican Triumph in 1800.=--Thus the way was prepared for the
election of 1800. The Republicans left no stone unturned in their
efforts to place on the Federalist candidate, President Adams, all the
odium of the Alien and Sedition laws, in addition to responsibility for
approving Hamilton's measures and policies. The Federalists, divided in
councils and cold in their affection for Adams, made a poor campaign.
They tried to discredit their opponents with epithets of "Jacobins" and
"Anarchists"--terms which had been weakened by excessive use. When the
vote was counted, it was found that Adams had been defeated; while the
Republicans had carried the entire South and New York also and secured
eight of the fifteen electoral votes cast by Pennsylvania. "Our beloved
Adams will now close his bright career," lamented a Federalist
newspaper. "Sons of faction, demagogues and high priests of anarchy, now
you have cause to triumph!"

[Illustration: _An old cartoon_

A QUARREL BETWEEN A FEDERALIST AND A REPUBLICAN IN THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES]

Jefferson's election, however, was still uncertain. By a curious
provision in the Constitution, presidential electors were required to
vote for two persons without indicating which office each was to fill,
the one receiving the highest number of votes to be President and the
candidate standing next to be Vice President. It so happened that Aaron
Burr, the Republican candidate for Vice President, had received the same
number of votes as Jefferson; as neither had a majority the election was
thrown into the House of Representatives, where the Federalists held the
balance of power. Although it was well known that Burr was not even a
candidate for President, his friends and many Federalists began
intriguing for his election to that high office. Had it not been for the
vigorous action of Hamilton the prize might have been snatched out of
Jefferson's hands. Not until the thirty-sixth ballot on February 17,
1801, was the great issue decided in his favor.[2]

=References=

J.S. Bassett, _The Federalist System_ (American Nation Series).

C.A. Beard, _Economic Origins of Jeffersonian Democracy_.

H. Lodge, _Alexander Hamilton_.

J.T. Morse, _Thomas Jefferson_.

=Questions=

1. Who were the leaders in the first administration under the
Constitution?

2. What step was taken to appease the opposition?

3. Enumerate Hamilton's great measures and explain each in detail.

4. Show the connection between the parts of Hamilton's system.

5. Contrast the general political views of Hamilton and Jefferson.

6. What were the important results of the "peaceful" French Revolution
(1789-92)?

7. Explain the interaction of opinion between France and the United
States.

8. How did the "Reign of Terror" change American opinion?

9. What was the Burke-Paine controversy?

10. Show how the war in Europe affected American commerce and involved
America with England and France.

11. What were American policies with regard to each of those countries?

12. What was the outcome of the Alien and Sedition Acts?

=Research Topics=

=Early Federal Legislation.=--Coman, _Industrial History of the United
States_, pp. 133-156; Elson, _History of the United States_, pp.
341-348.

=Hamilton's Report on Public Credit.=--Macdonald, _Documentary Source
Book_, pp. 233-243.

=The French Revolution.=--Robinson and Beard, _Development of Modern
Europe_, Vol. I, pp. 224-282; Elson, pp. 351-354.

=The Burke-Paine Controversy.=--Make an analysis of Burke's _Reflections
on the French Revolution_ and Paine's _Rights of Man_.

=The Alien and Sedition Acts.=--Macdonald, _Documentary Source Book_,
pp. 259-267; Elson, pp. 367-375.

=Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.=--Macdonald, pp. 267-278.

=Source Studies.=--Materials in Hart, _American History Told by
Contemporaries_, Vol. III, pp. 255-343.

=Biographical Studies.=--Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, Thomas
Jefferson, and Albert Gallatin.

=The Twelfth Amendment.=--Contrast the provision in the original
Constitution with the terms of the Amendment. _See_ Appendix.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] North Carolina ratified in November, 1789, and Rhode Island in May,
1790.

[2] To prevent a repetition of such an unfortunate affair, the twelfth
amendment of the Constitution was adopted in 1804, changing slightly the
method of electing the President.

CHAPTER IX

THE JEFFERSONIAN REPUBLICANS IN POWER

REPUBLICAN PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES

=Opposition to Strong Central Government.=--Cherishing especially the
agricultural interest, as Jefferson said, the Republicans were in the
beginning provincial in their concern and outlook. Their attachment to
America was, certainly, as strong as that of Hamilton; but they regarded
the state, rather than the national government, as the proper center of
power and affection. Indeed, a large part of the rank and file had been
among the opponents of the Constitution in the days of its adoption.
Jefferson had entertained doubts about it and Monroe, destined to be the
fifth President, had been one of the bitter foes of ratification. The
former went so far in the direction of local autonomy that he exalted
the state above the nation in the Kentucky resolutions of 1798,
declaring the Constitution to be a mere compact and the states competent
to interpret and nullify federal law. This was provincialism with a
vengeance. "It is jealousy, not confidence, which prescribes limited
constitutions," wrote Jefferson for the Kentucky legislature. Jealousy
of the national government, not confidence in it--this is the ideal that
reflected the provincial and agricultural interest.

=Republican Simplicity.=--Every act of the Jeffersonian party during its
early days of power was in accord with the ideals of government which it
professed. It had opposed all pomp and ceremony, calculated to give
weight and dignity to the chief executive of the nation, as symbols of
monarchy and high prerogative. Appropriately, therefore, Jefferson's
inauguration on March 4, 1801, the first at the new capital at
Washington, was marked by extreme simplicity. In keeping with this
procedure he quit the practice, followed by Washington and Adams, of
reading presidential addresses to Congress in joint assembly and adopted
in its stead the plan of sending his messages in writing--a custom that
was continued unbroken until 1913 when President Wilson returned to the
example set by the first chief magistrate.

=Republican Measures.=--The Republicans had complained of a great
national debt as the source of a dangerous "money power," giving
strength to the federal government; accordingly they began to pay it off
as rapidly as possible. They had held commerce in low esteem and looked
upon a large navy as a mere device to protect it; consequently they
reduced the number of warships. They had objected to excise taxes,
particularly on whisky; these they quickly abolished, to the intense
satisfaction of the farmers. They had protested against the heavy cost
of the federal government; they reduced expenses by discharging hundreds
of men from the army and abolishing many offices.

They had savagely criticized the Sedition law and Jefferson refused to
enforce it. They had been deeply offended by the assault on freedom of
speech and press and they promptly impeached Samuel Chase, a justice of
the Supreme Court, who had been especially severe in his attacks upon
offenders under the Sedition Act. Their failure to convict Justice Chase
by a narrow margin was due to no lack of zeal on their part but to the
Federalist strength in the Senate where the trial was held. They had
regarded the appointment of a large number of federal judges during the
last hours of Adams' administration as an attempt to intrench
Federalists in the judiciary and to enlarge the sphere of the national
government. Accordingly, they at once repealed the act creating the new
judgeships, thus depriving the "midnight appointees" of their posts.
They had considered the federal offices, civil and military, as sources
of great strength to the Federalists and Jefferson, though committed to
the principle that offices should be open to all and distributed
according to merit, was careful to fill most of the vacancies as they
occurred with trusted Republicans. To his credit, however, it must be
said that he did not make wholesale removals to find room for party
workers.

The Republicans thus hewed to the line of their general policy of
restricting the weight, dignity, and activity of the national
government. Yet there were no Republicans, as the Federalists asserted,
prepared to urge serious modifications in the Constitution. "If there be
any among us who wish to dissolve this union or to change its republican
form," wrote Jefferson in his first inaugural, "let them stand
undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may
be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." After reciting the
fortunate circumstances of climate, soil, and isolation which made the
future of America so full of promise, Jefferson concluded: "A wise and
frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another,
shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of
industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labour the
bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government; and this is
necessary to close the circle of our felicities."

In all this the Republicans had not reckoned with destiny. In a few
short years that lay ahead it was their fate to double the territory of
the country, making inevitable a continental nation; to give the
Constitution a generous interpretation that shocked many a Federalist;
to wage war on behalf of American commerce; to reestablish the hated
United States Bank; to enact a high protective tariff; to see their
Federalist opponents in their turn discredited as nullifiers and
provincials; to announce high national doctrines in foreign affairs; and
to behold the Constitution exalted and defended against the pretensions
of states by a son of old Virginia, John Marshall, Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court of the United States.

THE REPUBLICANS AND THE GREAT WEST

=Expansion and Land Hunger.=--The first of the great measures which
drove the Republicans out upon this new national course--the purchase
of the Louisiana territory--was the product of circumstances rather than
of their deliberate choosing. It was not the lack of land for his
cherished farmers that led Jefferson to add such an immense domain to
the original possessions of the United States. In the Northwest
territory, now embracing Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin,
and a portion of Minnesota, settlements were mainly confined to the
north bank of the Ohio River. To the south, in Kentucky and Tennessee,
where there were more than one hundred thousand white people who had
pushed over the mountains from Virginia and the Carolinas, there were
still wide reaches of untilled soil. The Alabama and Mississippi regions
were vast Indian frontiers of the state of Georgia, unsettled and almost
unexplored. Even to the wildest imagination there seemed to be territory
enough to satisfy the land hunger of the American people for a century
to come.

=The Significance of the Mississippi River.=--At all events the East,
then the center of power, saw no good reason for expansion. The planters
of the Carolinas, the manufacturers of Pennsylvania, the importers of
New York, the shipbuilders of New England, looking to the seaboard and
to Europe for trade, refinements, and sometimes their ideas of
government, were slow to appreciate the place of the West in national
economy. The better educated the Easterners were, the less, it seems,
they comprehended the destiny of the nation. Sons of Federalist fathers
at Williams College, after a long debate decided by a vote of fifteen to
one that the purchase of Louisiana was undesirable.

On the other hand, the pioneers of Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee,
unlearned in books, saw with their own eyes the resources of the
wilderness. Many of them had been across the Mississippi and had beheld
the rich lands awaiting the plow of the white man. Down the great river
they floated their wheat, corn, and bacon to ocean-going ships bound for
the ports of the seaboard or for Europe. The land journeys over the
mountain barriers with bulky farm produce, they knew from experience,
were almost impossible, and costly at best. Nails, bolts of cloth, tea,
and coffee could go or come that way, but not corn and bacon. A free
outlet to the sea by the Mississippi was as essential to the pioneers of
the Kentucky region as the harbor of Boston to the merchant princes of
that metropolis.

=Louisiana under Spanish Rule.=--For this reason they watched with deep
solicitude the fortunes of the Spanish king to whom, at the close of the
Seven Years' War, had fallen the Louisiana territory stretching from New
Orleans to the Rocky Mountains. While he controlled the mouth of the
Mississippi there was little to fear, for he had neither the army nor
the navy necessary to resist any invasion of American trade. Moreover,
Washington had been able, by the exercise of great tact, to secure from
Spain in 1795 a trading privilege through New Orleans which satisfied
the present requirements of the frontiersmen even if it did not allay
their fears for the future. So things stood when a swift succession of
events altered the whole situation.

=Louisiana Transferred to France.=--In July, 1802, a royal order from
Spain instructed the officials at New Orleans to close the port to
American produce. About the same time a disturbing rumor, long current,
was confirmed--Napoleon had coerced Spain into returning Louisiana to
France by a secret treaty signed in 1800. "The scalers of the Alps and
conquerors of Venice" now looked across the sea for new scenes of
adventure. The West was ablaze with excitement. A call for war ran
through the frontier; expeditions were organized to prevent the landing
of the French; and petitions for instant action flooded in upon
Jefferson.

=Jefferson Sees the Danger.=--Jefferson, the friend of France and sworn
enemy of England, compelled to choose in the interest of America, never
winced. "The cession of Louisiana and the Floridas by Spain to France,"
he wrote to Livingston, the American minister in Paris, "works sorely on
the United States. It completely reverses all the political relations of
the United States and will form a new epoch in our political course....
There is on the globe one single spot, the possessor of which is our
natural and habitual enemy. It is New Orleans through which the produce
of three-eighths of our territory must pass to market.... France,
placing herself in that door, assumes to us an attitude of defiance.
Spain might have retained it quietly for years. Her pacific
dispositions, her feeble state would induce her to increase our
facilities there.... Not so can it ever be in the hands of France....
The day that France takes possession of New Orleans fixes the sentence
which is to restrain her forever within her low water mark.... It seals
the union of the two nations who in conjunction can maintain exclusive
possession of the ocean. From that moment we must marry ourselves to the
British fleet and nation.... This is not a state of things we seek or
desire. It is one which this measure, if adopted by France, forces on us
as necessarily as any other cause by the laws of nature brings on its
necessary effect."

=Louisiana Purchased.=--Acting on this belief, but apparently seeing
only the Mississippi outlet at stake, Jefferson sent his friend, James
Monroe, to France with the power to buy New Orleans and West Florida.
Before Monroe arrived, the regular minister, Livingston, had already
convinced Napoleon that it would be well to sell territory which might
be wrested from him at any moment by the British sea power, especially
as the war, temporarily stopped by the peace of Amiens, was once more
raging in Europe. Wise as he was in his day, Livingston had at first no
thought of buying the whole Louisiana country. He was simply dazed when
Napoleon offered to sell the entire domain and get rid of the business
altogether. Though staggered by the proposal, he and Monroe decided to
accept. On April 30, they signed the treaty of cession, agreeing to pay
$11,250,000 in six per cent bonds and to discharge certain debts due
French citizens, making in all approximately fifteen millions. Spain
protested, Napoleon's brother fumed, French newspapers objected; but the
deed was done.

=Jefferson and His Constitutional Scruples.=--When the news of this
extraordinary event reached the United States, the people were filled
with astonishment, and no one was more surprised than Jefferson himself.
He had thought of buying New Orleans and West Florida for a small sum,
and now a vast domain had been dumped into the lap of the nation. He was
puzzled. On looking into the Constitution he found not a line
authorizing the purchase of more territory and so he drafted an
amendment declaring "Louisiana, as ceded by France,--a part of the
United States." He had belabored the Federalists for piling up a big
national debt and he could hardly endure the thought of issuing more
bonds himself.

In the midst of his doubts came the news that Napoleon might withdraw
from the bargain. Thoroughly alarmed by that, Jefferson pressed the
Senate for a ratification of the treaty. He still clung to his original
idea that the Constitution did not warrant the purchase; but he lamely
concluded: "If our friends shall think differently, I shall certainly
acquiesce with satisfaction; confident that the good sense of our
country will correct the evil of construction when it shall produce ill
effects." Thus the stanch advocate of "strict interpretation" cut loose
from his own doctrine and intrusted the construction of the Constitution
to "the good sense" of his countrymen.

=The Treaty Ratified.=--This unusual transaction, so favorable to the
West, aroused the ire of the seaboard Federalists. Some denounced it as
unconstitutional, easily forgetting Hamilton's masterly defense of the
bank, also not mentioned in the Constitution. Others urged that, if "the
howling wilderness" ever should be settled, it would turn against the
East, form new commercial connections, and escape from federal control.
Still others protested that the purchase would lead inevitably to the
dominance of a "hotch potch of wild men from the Far West." Federalists,
who thought "the broad back of America" could readily bear Hamilton's
consolidated debt, now went into agonies over a bond issue of less than
one-sixth of that amount. But in vain. Jefferson's party with a high
hand carried the day. The Senate, after hearing the Federalist protest,
ratified the treaty. In December, 1803, the French flag was hauled down
from the old government buildings in New Orleans and the Stars and
Stripes were hoisted as a sign that the land of Coronado, De Soto,
Marquette, and La Salle had passed forever to the United States.

[Illustration: THE UNITED STATES IN 1805]

By a single stroke, the original territory of the United States was more
than doubled. While the boundaries of the purchase were uncertain, it is
safe to say that the Louisiana territory included what is now Arkansas,
Missouri, Iowa, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, and large
portions of Louisiana, Minnesota, North Dakota, Colorado, Montana, and
Wyoming. The farm lands that the friends of "a little America" on the
seacoast declared a hopeless wilderness were, within a hundred years,
fully occupied and valued at nearly seven billion dollars--almost five
hundred times the price paid to Napoleon.

=Western Explorations.=--Having taken the fateful step, Jefferson wisely
began to make the most of it. He prepared for the opening of the new
country by sending the Lewis and Clark expedition to explore it,
discover its resources, and lay out an overland route through the
Missouri Valley and across the Great Divide to the Pacific. The story of
this mighty exploit, which began in the spring of 1804 and ended in the
autumn of 1806, was set down with skill and pains in the journal of
Lewis and Clark; when published even in a short form, it invited the
forward-looking men of the East to take thought about the western
empire. At the same time Zebulon Pike, in a series of journeys, explored
the sources of the Mississippi River and penetrated the Spanish
territories of the far Southwest. Thus scouts and pioneers continued the
work of diplomats.

THE REPUBLICAN WAR FOR COMMERCIAL INDEPENDENCE

=The English and French Blockades.=--In addition to bringing Louisiana
to the United States, the reopening of the European War in 1803, after a
short lull, renewed in an acute form the commercial difficulties that
had plagued the country all during the administrations of Washington and
Adams. The Republicans were now plunged into the hornets' nest. The
party whose ardent spirits had burned Jay in effigy, stoned Hamilton for
defending his treaty, jeered Washington's proclamation of neutrality,
and spoken bitterly of "timid traders," could no longer take refuge in
criticism. It had to act.

Its troubles took a serious turn in 1806. England, in a determined
effort to bring France to her knees by starvation, declared the coast of
Europe blockaded from Brest to the mouth of the Elbe River. Napoleon
retaliated by his Berlin Decree of November, 1806, blockading the
British Isles--a measure terrifying to American ship owners whose
vessels were liable to seizure by any French rover, though Napoleon had
no navy to make good his proclamation. Great Britain countered with a
still more irritating decree--the Orders in Council of 1807. It modified
its blockade, but in so doing merely authorized American ships not
carrying munitions of war to complete their voyage to the Continent, on
condition of their stopping at a British port, securing a license, and
paying a tax. This, responded Napoleon, was the height of insolence, and
he denounced it as a gross violation of international law. He then
closed the circle of American troubles by issuing his Milan Decree of
December, 1807. This order declared that any ship which complied with
the British rules would be subject to seizure and confiscation by French
authorities.

=The Impressment of Seamen.=--That was not all. Great Britain, in dire
need of men for her navy, adopted the practice of stopping American
ships, searching them, and carrying away British-born sailors found on
board. British sailors were so badly treated, so cruelly flogged for
trivial causes, and so meanly fed that they fled in crowds to the
American marine. In many cases it was difficult to tell whether seamen
were English or American. They spoke the same language, so that language
was no test. Rovers on the deep and stragglers in the ports of both
countries, they frequently had no papers to show their nativity.
Moreover, Great Britain held to the old rule--"Once an Englishman,
always an Englishman"--a doctrine rejected by the United States in
favor of the principle that a man could choose the nation to which he
would give allegiance. British sea captains, sometimes by mistake, and
often enough with reckless indifference, carried away into servitude in
their own navy genuine American citizens. The process itself, even when
executed with all the civilities of law, was painful enough, for it
meant that American ships were forced to "come to," and compelled to
rest submissively under British guns until the searching party had pried
into records, questioned seamen, seized and handcuffed victims. Saints
could not have done this work without raising angry passions, and only
saints could have endured it with patience and fortitude.

Had the enactment of the scenes been confined to the high seas and
knowledge of them to rumors and newspaper stories, American resentment
might not have been so intense; but many a search and seizure was made
in sight of land. British and French vessels patrolled the coasts,
firing on one another and chasing one another in American waters within
the three-mile limit. When, in the summer of 1807, the American frigate
_Chesapeake_ refused to surrender men alleged to be deserters from King
George's navy, the British warship _Leopard_ opened fire, killing three
men and wounding eighteen more--an act which even the British ministry
could hardly excuse. If the French were less frequently the offenders,
it was not because of their tenderness about American rights but because
so few of their ships escaped the hawk-eyed British navy to operate in
American waters.

=The Losses in American Commerce.=--This high-handed conduct on the part
of European belligerents was very injurious to American trade. By their
enterprise, American shippers had become the foremost carriers on the
Atlantic Ocean. In a decade they had doubled the tonnage of American
merchant ships under the American flag, taking the place of the French
marine when Britain swept that from the seas, and supplying Britain with
the sinews of war for the contest with the Napoleonic empire. The
American shipping engaged in foreign trade embraced 363,110 tons in
1791; 669,921 tons in 1800; and almost 1,000,000 tons in 1810. Such was
the enterprise attacked by the British and French decrees. American
ships bound for Great Britain were liable to be captured by French
privateers which, in spite of the disasters of the Nile and Trafalgar,
ranged the seas. American ships destined for the Continent, if they
failed to stop at British ports and pay tribute, were in great danger of
capture by the sleepless British navy and its swarm of auxiliaries.
American sea captains who, in fear of British vengeance, heeded the
Orders in Council and paid the tax were almost certain to fall a prey to
French vengeance, for the French were vigorous in executing the Milan
Decree.

=Jefferson's Policy.=--The President's dilemma was distressing. Both the
belligerents in Europe were guilty of depredations on American commerce.
War on both of them was out of the question. War on France was
impossible because she had no territory on this side of the water which
could be reached by American troops and her naval forces had been
shattered at the battles of the Nile and Trafalgar. War on Great
Britain, a power which Jefferson's followers feared and distrusted, was
possible but not inviting. Jefferson shrank from it. A man of peace, he
disliked war's brazen clamor; a man of kindly spirit, he was startled at
the death and destruction which it brought in its train. So for the
eight years Jefferson steered an even course, suggesting measure after
measure with a view to avoiding bloodshed. He sent, it is true,
Commodore Preble in 1803 to punish Mediterranean pirates preying upon
American commerce; but a great war he evaded with passionate
earnestness, trying in its place every other expedient to protect
American rights.

=The Embargo and Non-intercourse Acts.=--In 1806, Congress passed and
Jefferson approved a non-importation act closing American ports to
certain products from British dominions--a measure intended as a club
over the British government's head. This law, failing in its purpose,
Jefferson proposed and Congress adopted in December, 1807, the Embargo
Act forbidding all vessels to leave American harbors for foreign ports.
France and England were to be brought to terms by cutting off their
supplies.

The result of the embargo was pathetic. England and France refused to
give up search and seizure. American ship owners who, lured by huge
profits, had formerly been willing to take the risk were now restrained
by law to their home ports. Every section suffered. The South and West
found their markets for cotton, rice, tobacco, corn, and bacon
curtailed. Thus they learned by bitter experience the national
significance of commerce. Ship masters, ship builders, longshoremen, and
sailors were thrown out of employment while the prices of foreign goods
doubled. Those who obeyed the law were ruined; violators of the law
smuggled goods into Canada and Florida for shipment abroad.

Jefferson's friends accepted the medicine with a wry face as the only
alternative to supine submission or open war. His opponents, without
offering any solution of their own, denounced it as a contemptible plan
that brought neither relief nor honor. Beset by the clamor that arose on
all sides, Congress, in the closing days of Jefferson's administration,
repealed the Embargo law and substituted a Non-intercourse act
forbidding trade with England and France while permitting it with other
countries--a measure equally futile in staying the depredations on
American shipping.

=Jefferson Retires in Favor of Madison.=--Jefferson, exhausted by
endless wrangling and wounded, as Washington had been, by savage
criticism, welcomed March 4, 1809. His friends urged him to "stay by the
ship" and accept a third term. He declined, saying that election for
life might result from repeated reelection. In following Washington's
course and defending it on principle, he set an example to all his
successors, making the "third term doctrine" a part of American
unwritten law.

His intimate friend, James Madison, to whom he turned over the burdens
of his high office was, like himself, a man of peace. Madison had been a
leader since the days of the Revolution, but in legislative halls and
council chambers, not on the field of battle. Small in stature,
sensitive in feelings, studious in habits, he was no man for the rough
and tumble of practical politics. He had taken a prominent and
distinguished part in the framing and the adoption of the Constitution.
He had served in the first Congress as a friend of Hamilton's measures.
Later he attached himself to Jefferson's fortunes and served for eight
years as his first counselor, the Secretary of State. The principles of
the Constitution, which he had helped to make and interpret, he was now
as President called upon to apply in one of the most perplexing moments
in all American history. In keeping with his own traditions and
following in the footsteps of Jefferson, he vainly tried to solve the
foreign problem by negotiation.

=The Trend of Events.=--Whatever difficulties Madison had in making up
his mind on war and peace were settled by events beyond his own control.
In the spring of 1811, a British frigate held up an American ship near
the harbor of New York and impressed a seaman alleged to be an American
citizen. Burning with resentment, the captain of the _President_, an
American warship, acting under orders, poured several broadsides into
the _Little Belt_, a British sloop, suspected of being the guilty party.
The British also encouraged the Indian chief Tecumseh, who welded
together the Indians of the Northwest under British protection and gave
signs of restlessness presaging a revolt. This sent a note of alarm
along the frontier that was not checked even when, in November,
Tecumseh's men were badly beaten at Tippecanoe by William Henry
Harrison. The Indians stood in the way of the advancing frontier, and it
seemed to the pioneers that, without support from the British in Canada,
the Red Men would soon be subdued.

=Clay and Calhoun.=--While events were moving swiftly and rumors were
flying thick and fast, the mastery of the government passed from the
uncertain hands of Madison to a party of ardent young men in Congress,
dubbed "Young Republicans," under the leadership of two members destined
to be mighty figures in American history: Henry Clay of Kentucky and
John C. Calhoun of South Carolina. The former contended, in a flair of
folly, that "the militia of Kentucky alone are competent to place
Montreal and Upper Canada at your feet." The latter with a light heart
spoke of conquering Canada in a four weeks' campaign. "It must not be
inferred," says Channing, "that in advocating conquest, the Westerners
were actuated merely by desire for land; they welcomed war because they
thought it would be the easiest way to abate Indian troubles. The
savages were supported by the fur-trading interests that centred at
Quebec and London.... The Southerners on their part wished for Florida
and they thought that the conquest of Canada would obviate some Northern
opposition to this acquisition of slave territory." While Clay and
Calhoun, spokesmen of the West and South, were not unmindful of what
Napoleon had done to American commerce, they knew that their followers
still remembered with deep gratitude the aid of the French in the war
for independence and that the embers of the old hatred for George III,
still on the throne, could be readily blown into flame.

=Madison Accepts War as Inevitable.=--The conduct of the British
ministers with whom Madison had to deal did little to encourage him in
adhering to the policy of "watchful waiting." One of them, a high Tory,
believed that all Americans were alike "except that a few are less
knaves than others" and his methods were colored by his belief. On the
recall of this minister the British government selected another no less
high and mighty in his principles and opinions. So Madison became
thoroughly discouraged about the outcome of pacific measures. When the
pressure from Congress upon him became too heavy, he gave way, signing
on June 18, 1812, the declaration of war on Great Britain. In
proclaiming hostilities, the administration set forth the causes which
justified the declaration; namely, the British had been encouraging the
Indians to attack American citizens on the frontier; they had ruined
American trade by blockades; they had insulted the American flag by
stopping and searching our ships; they had illegally seized American
sailors and driven them into the British navy.

=The Course of the War.=--The war lasted for nearly three years without
bringing victory to either side. The surrender of Detroit by General
Hull to the British and the failure of the American invasion of Canada
were offset by Perry's victory on Lake Erie and a decisive blow
administered to British designs for an invasion of New York by way of
Plattsburgh. The triumph of Jackson at New Orleans helped to atone for
the humiliation suffered in the burning of the Capitol by the British.
The stirring deeds of the _Constitution_, the _United States_, and the
_Argus_ on the seas, the heroic death of Lawrence and the victories of a
hundred privateers furnished consolation for those who suffered from the
iron blockade finally established by the British government when it came
to appreciate the gravity of the situation. While men love the annals of
the sea, they will turn to the running battles, the narrow escapes, and
the reckless daring of American sailors in that naval contest with Great
Britain.

All this was exciting but it was inconclusive. In fact, never was a
government less prepared than was that of the United States in 1812. It
had neither the disciplined troops, the ships of war, nor the supplies
required by the magnitude of the military task. It was fortune that
favored the American cause. Great Britain, harassed, worn, and
financially embarrassed by nearly twenty years of fighting in Europe,
was in no mood to gather her forces for a titanic effort in America even
after Napoleon was overthrown and sent into exile at Elba in the spring
of 1814. War clouds still hung on the European horizon and the conflict
temporarily halted did again break out. To be rid of American anxieties
and free for European eventualities, England was ready to settle with
the United States, especially as that could be done without conceding
anything or surrendering any claims.

=The Treaty of Peace.=--Both countries were in truth sick of a war that
offered neither glory nor profit. Having indulged in the usual
diplomatic skirmishing, they sent representatives to Ghent to discuss
terms of peace. After long negotiations an agreement was reached on
Christmas eve, 1814, a few days before Jackson's victory at New Orleans.
When the treaty reached America the people were surprised to find that
it said nothing about the seizure of American sailors, the destruction
of American trade, the searching of American ships, or the support of
Indians on the frontier. Nevertheless, we are told, the people "passed
from gloom to glory" when the news of peace arrived. The bells were
rung; schools were closed; flags were displayed; and many a rousing
toast was drunk in tavern and private home. The rejoicing could
continue. With Napoleon definitely beaten at Waterloo in June, 1815,
Great Britain had no need to impress sailors, search ships, and
confiscate American goods bound to the Continent. Once more the terrible
sea power sank into the background and the ocean was again white with
the sails of merchantmen.

THE REPUBLICANS NATIONALIZED

=The Federalists Discredited.=--By a strange turn of fortune's wheel,
the party of Hamilton, Washington, Adams, the party of the grand nation,
became the party of provincialism and nullification. New England,
finding its shipping interests crippled in the European conflict and
then penalized by embargoes, opposed the declaration of war on Great
Britain, which meant the completion of the ruin already begun. In the
course of the struggle, the Federalist leaders came perilously near to
treason in their efforts to hamper the government of the United States;
and in their desperation they fell back upon the doctrine of
nullification so recently condemned by them when it came from Kentucky.
The Senate of Massachusetts, while the war was in progress, resolved
that it was waged "without justifiable cause," and refused to approve
military and naval projects not connected with "the defense of our
seacoast and soil." A Boston newspaper declared that the union was
nothing but a treaty among sovereign states, that states could decide
for themselves the question of obeying federal law, and that armed
resistance under the banner of a state would not be rebellion or
treason. The general assembly of Connecticut reminded the administration
at Washington that "the state of Connecticut is a free, sovereign, and
independent state." Gouverneur Morris, a member of the convention which
had drafted the Constitution, suggested the holding of another
conference to consider whether the Northern states should remain in the
union.

[Illustration: _From an old cartoon_

NEW ENGLAND JUMPING INTO THE HANDS OF GEORGE III]

In October, 1814, a convention of delegates from Connecticut,
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and certain counties of New Hampshire and
Vermont was held at Hartford, on the call of Massachusetts. The counsels
of the extremists were rejected but the convention solemnly went on
record to the effect that acts of Congress in violation of the
Constitution are void; that in cases of deliberate, dangerous, and
palpable infractions the state is duty bound to interpose its authority
for the protection of its citizens; and that when emergencies occur the
states must be their own judges and execute their own decisions. Thus
New England answered the challenge of Calhoun and Clay. Fortunately its
actions were not as rash as its words. The Hartford convention merely
proposed certain amendments to the Constitution and adjourned. At the
close of the war, its proposals vanished harmlessly; but the men who
made them were hopelessly discredited.

=The Second United States Bank.=--In driving the Federalists towards
nullification and waging a national war themselves, the Republicans lost
all their old taint of provincialism. Moreover, in turning to measures
of reconstruction called forth by the war, they resorted to the national
devices of the Federalists. In 1816, they chartered for a period of
twenty years a second United States Bank--the institution which
Jefferson and Madison once had condemned as unsound and
unconstitutional. The Constitution remained unchanged; times and
circumstances had changed. Calhoun dismissed the vexed question of
constitutionality with a scant reference to an ancient dispute, while
Madison set aside his scruples and signed the bill.

=The Protective Tariff of 1816.=--The Republicans supplemented the Bank
by another Federalist measure--a high protective tariff. Clay viewed it
as the beginning of his "American system" of protection. Calhoun
defended it on national principles. For this sudden reversal of policy
the young Republicans were taunted by some of their older party
colleagues with betraying the "agricultural interest" that Jefferson had
fostered; but Calhoun refused to listen to their criticisms. "When the
seas are open," he said, "the produce of the South may pour anywhere
into the markets of the Old World.... What are the effects of a war with
a maritime power--with England? Our commerce annihilated ... our
agriculture cut off from its accustomed markets, the surplus of the
farmer perishes on his hands.... The recent war fell with peculiar
pressure on the growers of cotton and tobacco and the other great
staples of the country; and the same state of things will recur in the
event of another war unless prevented by the foresight of this body....
When our manufactures are grown to a certain perfection, as they soon
will be under the fostering care of the government, we shall no longer
experience these evils." With the Republicans nationalized, the
Federalist party, as an organization, disappeared after a crushing
defeat in the presidential campaign of 1816.

=Monroe and the Florida Purchase.=--To the victor in that political
contest, James Monroe of Virginia, fell two tasks of national
importance, adding to the prestige of the whole country and deepening
the sense of patriotism that weaned men away from mere allegiance to
states. The first of these was the purchase of Florida from Spain. The
acquisition of Louisiana let the Mississippi flow "unvexed to the sea";
but it left all the states east of the river cut off from the Gulf,
affording them ground for discontent akin to that which had moved the
pioneers of Kentucky to action a generation earlier. The uncertainty as
to the boundaries of Louisiana gave the United States a claim to West
Florida, setting on foot a movement for occupation. The Florida swamps
were a basis for Indian marauders who periodically swept into the
frontier settlements, and hiding places for runaway slaves. Thus the
sanction of international law was given to punitive expeditions into
alien territory.

The pioneer leaders stood waiting for the signal. It came. President
Monroe, on the occasion of an Indian outbreak, ordered General Jackson
to seize the offenders, in the Floridas, if necessary. The high-spirited
warrior, taking this as a hint that he was to occupy the coveted region,
replied that, if possession was the object of the invasion, he could
occupy the Floridas within sixty days. Without waiting for an answer to
this letter, he launched his expedition, and in the spring of 1818 was
master of the Spanish king's domain to the south.

There was nothing for the king to do but to make the best of the
inevitable by ceding the Floridas to the United States in return for
five million dollars to be paid to American citizens having claims
against Spain. On Washington's birthday, 1819, the treaty was signed. It
ceded the Floridas to the United States and defined the boundary between
Mexico and the United States by drawing a line from the mouth of the
Sabine River in a northwesterly direction to the Pacific. On this
occasion even Monroe, former opponent of the Constitution, forgot to
inquire whether new territory could be constitutionally acquired and
incorporated into the American union. The Republicans seemed far away
from the days of "strict construction." And Jefferson still lived!

=The Monroe Doctrine.=--Even more effective in fashioning the national
idea was Monroe's enunciation of the famous doctrine that bears his
name. The occasion was another European crisis. During the Napoleonic
upheaval and the years of dissolution that ensued, the Spanish colonies
in America, following the example set by their English neighbors in
1776, declared their independence. Unable to conquer them alone, the
king of Spain turned for help to the friendly powers of Europe that
looked upon revolution and republics with undisguised horror.

_The Holy Alliance._--He found them prepared to view his case with
sympathy. Three of them, Austria, Prussia, and Russia, under the
leadership of the Czar, Alexander I, in the autumn of 1815, had entered
into a Holy Alliance to sustain by reciprocal service the autocratic
principle in government. Although the effusive, almost maudlin, language
of the treaty did not express their purpose explicitly, the Alliance was
later regarded as a mere union of monarchs to prevent the rise and
growth of popular government.

The American people thought their worst fears confirmed when, in 1822, a
conference of delegates from Russia, Austria, Prussia, and France met at
Verona to consider, among other things, revolutions that had just broken
out in Spain and Italy. The spirit of the conference is reflected in the
first article of the agreement reached by the delegates: "The high
contracting powers, being convinced that the system of representative
government is equally incompatible with the monarchical principle and
the maxim of the sovereignty of the people with the divine right,
mutually engage in the most solemn manner to use all their efforts to
put an end to the system of representative government in whatever
country it may exist in Europe and to prevent its being introduced in
those countries where it is not yet known." The Czar, who incidentally
coveted the west coast of North America, proposed to send an army to aid
the king of Spain in his troubles at home, thus preparing the way for
intervention in Spanish America. It was material weakness not want of
spirit, that prevented the grand union of monarchs from making open war
on popular government.

_The Position of England._--Unfortunately, too, for the Holy Alliance,
England refused to cooeperate. English merchants had built up a large
trade with the independent Latin-American colonies and they protested
against the restoration of Spanish sovereignty, which meant a renewal of
Spain's former trade monopoly. Moreover, divine right doctrines had been
laid to rest in England and the representative principle thoroughly
established. Already there were signs of the coming democratic flood
which was soon to carry the first reform bill of 1832, extending the
suffrage, and sweep on to even greater achievements. British statesmen,
therefore, had to be cautious. In such circumstances, instead of
cooeperating with the autocrats of Russia, Austria, and Prussia, they
turned to the minister of the United States in London. The British prime
minister, Canning, proposed that the two countries join in declaring
their unwillingness to see the Spanish colonies transferred to any other
power.

_Jefferson's Advice._--The proposal was rejected; but President Monroe
took up the suggestion with Madison and Jefferson as well as with his
Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams. They favored the plan. Jefferson
said: "One nation, most of all, could disturb us in this pursuit [of
freedom]; she now offers to lead, aid, and accompany us in it. By
acceding to her proposition we detach her from the bands, bring her
mighty weight into the scale of free government and emancipate a
continent at one stroke.... With her on our side we need not fear the
whole world. With her then we should most sedulously cherish a cordial
friendship."

_Monroe's Statement of the Doctrine._--Acting on the advice of trusted
friends, President Monroe embodied in his message to Congress, on
December 2, 1823, a statement of principles now famous throughout the
world as the Monroe Doctrine. To the autocrats of Europe he announced
that he would regard "any attempt on their part to extend their system
to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety."
While he did not propose to interfere with existing colonies dependent
on European powers, he ranged himself squarely on the side of those that
had declared their independence. Any attempt by a European power to
oppress them or control their destiny in any manner he characterized as
"a manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States."
Referring in another part of his message to a recent claim which the
Czar had made to the Pacific coast, President Monroe warned the Old
World that "the American continents, by the free and independent
condition which they have assumed and maintained, are henceforth not to
be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European
powers." The effect of this declaration was immediate and profound. Men
whose political horizon had been limited to a community or state were
led to consider their nation as a great power among the sovereignties of
the earth, taking its part in shaping their international relations.

=The Missouri Compromise.=--Respecting one other important measure of
this period, the Republicans also took a broad view of their obligations
under the Constitution; namely, the Missouri Compromise. It is true,
they insisted on the admission of Missouri as a slave state, balanced
against the free state of Maine; but at the same time they assented to
the prohibition of slavery in the Louisiana territory north of the line
36 deg. 30'. During the debate on the subject an extreme view had been
presented, to the effect that Congress had no constitutional warrant for
abolishing slavery in the territories. The precedent of the Northwest
Ordinance, ratified by Congress in 1789, seemed a conclusive answer from
practice to this contention; but Monroe submitted the issue to his
cabinet, which included Calhoun of South Carolina, Crawford of Georgia,
and Wirt of Virginia, all presumably adherents to the Jeffersonian
principle of strict construction. He received in reply a unanimous
verdict to the effect that Congress did have the power to prohibit
slavery in the territories governed by it. Acting on this advice he
approved, on March 6, 1820, the bill establishing freedom north of the
compromise line. This generous interpretation of the powers of Congress
stood for nearly forty years, until repudiated by the Supreme Court in
the Dred Scott case.

THE NATIONAL DECISIONS OF CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL

=John Marshall, the Nationalist.=--The Republicans in the lower ranges
of state politics, who did not catch the grand national style of their
leaders charged with responsibilities in the national field, were
assisted in their education by a Federalist from the Old Dominion, John
Marshall, who, as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United
States from 1801 to 1835, lost no occasion to exalt the Constitution
above the claims of the provinces. No differences of opinion as to his
political views have ever led even his warmest opponents to deny his
superb abilities or his sincere devotion to the national idea. All will
likewise agree that for talents, native and acquired, he was an ornament
to the humble democracy that brought him forth. His whole career was
American. Born on the frontier of Virginia, reared in a log cabin,
granted only the barest rudiments of education, inured to hardship and
rough life, he rose by masterly efforts to the highest judicial honor
America can bestow.

On him the bitter experience of the Revolution and of later days made a
lasting impression. He was no "summer patriot." He had been a soldier in
the Revolutionary army. He had suffered with Washington at Valley Forge.
He had seen his comrades in arms starving and freezing because the
Continental Congress had neither the power nor the inclination to force
the states to do their full duty. To him the Articles of Confederation
were the symbol of futility. Into the struggle for the formation of the
Constitution and its ratification in Virginia he had thrown himself with
the ardor of a soldier. Later, as a member of Congress, a representative
to France, and Secretary of State, he had aided the Federalists in
establishing the new government. When at length they were driven from
power in the executive and legislative branches of the government, he
was chosen for their last stronghold, the Supreme Court. By historic
irony he administered the oath of office to his bitterest enemy, Thomas
Jefferson; and, long after the author of the Declaration of Independence
had retired to private life, the stern Chief Justice continued to
announce the old Federalist principles from the Supreme Bench.

[Illustration: JOHN MARSHALL]

=Marbury _vs._ Madison--An Act of Congress Annulled.=--He had been in
his high office only two years when he laid down for the first time in
the name of the entire Court the doctrine that the judges have the power
to declare an act of Congress null and void when in their opinion it
violates the Constitution. This power was not expressly conferred on the
Court. Though many able men held that the judicial branch of the
government enjoyed it, the principle was not positively established
until 1803 when the case of Marbury _vs._ Madison was decided. In
rendering the opinion of the Court, Marshall cited no precedents. He
sought no foundations for his argument in ancient history. He rested it
on the general nature of the American system. The Constitution, ran his
reasoning, is the supreme law of the land; it limits and binds all who
act in the name of the United States; it limits the powers of Congress
and defines the rights of citizens. If Congress can ignore its
limitations and trespass upon the rights of citizens, Marshall argued,
then the Constitution disappears and Congress is supreme. Since,
however, the Constitution is supreme and superior to Congress, it is the
duty of judges, under their oath of office, to sustain it against
measures which violate it. Therefore, from the nature of the American
constitutional system the courts must declare null and void all acts
which are not authorized. "A law repugnant to the Constitution," he
closed, "is void and the courts as well as other departments are bound
by that instrument." From that day to this the practice of federal and
state courts in passing upon the constitutionality of laws has remained
unshaken.

This doctrine was received by Jefferson and many of his followers with
consternation. If the idea was sound, he exclaimed, "then indeed is our
Constitution a complete _felo de se_ [legally, a suicide]. For,
intending to establish three departments, cooerdinate and independent
that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according
to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for
the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected
by and independent of the nation.... The Constitution, on this
hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which
they may twist and shape into any form they please. It should be
remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever
power in any government is independent, is absolute also.... A judiciary
independent of a king or executive alone is a good thing; but
independence of the will of the nation is a solecism, at least in a
republican government." But Marshall was mighty and his view prevailed,
though from time to time other men, clinging to Jefferson's opinion,
likewise opposed the exercise by the Courts of the high power of passing
upon the constitutionality of acts of Congress.

=Acts of State Legislatures Declared Unconstitutional.=--Had Marshall
stopped with annulling an act of Congress, he would have heard less
criticism from Republican quarters; but, with the same firmness, he set
aside acts of state legislatures as well, whenever, in his opinion, they
violated the federal Constitution. In 1810, in the case of Fletcher
_vs._ Peck, he annulled an act of the Georgia legislature, informing the
state that it was not sovereign, but "a part of a large empire, ... a
member of the American union; and that union has a constitution ...
which imposes limits to the legislatures of the several states." In the
case of McCulloch _vs._ Maryland, decided in 1819, he declared void an
act of the Maryland legislature designed to paralyze the branches of the
United States Bank established in that state. In the same year, in the
still more memorable Dartmouth College case, he annulled an act of the
New Hampshire legislature which infringed upon the charter received by
the college from King George long before. That charter, he declared, was
a contract between the state and the college, which the legislature
under the federal Constitution could not impair. Two years later he
stirred the wrath of Virginia by summoning her to the bar of the Supreme
Court to answer in a case in which the validity of one of her laws was
involved and then justified his action in a powerful opinion rendered in
the case of Cohens _vs._ Virginia.

All these decisions aroused the legislatures of the states. They passed
sheaves of resolutions protesting and condemning; but Marshall never
turned and never stayed. The Constitution of the United States, he
fairly thundered at them, is the supreme law of the land; the Supreme
Court is the proper tribunal to pass finally upon the validity of the
laws of the states; and "those sovereignties," far from possessing the
right of review and nullification, are irrevocably bound by the
decisions of that Court. This was strong medicine for the authors of the
Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and for the members of the Hartford
convention; but they had to take it.

=The Doctrine of Implied Powers.=--While restraining Congress in the
Marbury case and the state legislatures in a score of cases, Marshall
also laid the judicial foundation for a broad and liberal view of the
Constitution as opposed to narrow and strict construction. In McCulloch
_vs._ Maryland, he construed generously the words "necessary and proper"
in such a way as to confer upon Congress a wide range of "implied
powers" in addition to their express powers. That case involved, among
other things, the question whether the act establishing the second
United States Bank was authorized by the Constitution. Marshall answered
in the affirmative. Congress, ran his reasoning, has large powers over
taxation and the currency; a bank is of appropriate use in the exercise
of these enumerated powers; and therefore, though not absolutely
necessary, a bank is entirely proper and constitutional. "With respect
to the means by which the powers that the Constitution confers are to be
carried into execution," he said, Congress must be allowed the
discretion which "will enable that body to perform the high duties
assigned to it, in the manner most beneficial to the people." In short,
the Constitution of the United States is not a strait jacket but a
flexible instrument vesting in Congress the powers necessary to meet
national problems as they arise. In delivering this opinion Marshall
used language almost identical with that employed by Lincoln when,
standing on the battle field of a war waged to preserve the nation, he
said that "a government of the people, by the people, for the people
shall not perish from the earth."

SUMMARY OF THE UNION AND NATIONAL POLITICS

During the strenuous period between the establishment of American
independence and the advent of Jacksonian democracy the great American
experiment was under the direction of the men who had launched it. All
the Presidents in that period, except John Quincy Adams, had taken part
in the Revolution. James Madison, the chief author of the Constitution,
lived until 1836. This age, therefore, was the "age of the fathers." It
saw the threatened ruin of the country under the Articles of
Confederation, the formation of the Constitution, the rise of political
parties, the growth of the West, the second war with England, and the
apparent triumph of the national spirit over sectionalism.

The new republic had hardly been started in 1783 before its troubles
began. The government could not raise money to pay its debts or running
expenses; it could not protect American commerce and manufactures
against European competition; it could not stop the continual issues of
paper money by the states; it could not intervene to put down domestic
uprisings that threatened the existence of the state governments.
Without money, without an army, without courts of law, the union under
the Articles of Confederation was drifting into dissolution. Patriots,
who had risked their lives for independence, began to talk of monarchy
again. Washington, Hamilton, and Madison insisted that a new
constitution alone could save America from disaster.

By dint of much labor the friends of a new form of government induced
the Congress to call a national convention to take into account the
state of America. In May, 1787, it assembled at Philadelphia and for
months it debated and wrangled over plans for a constitution. The small
states clamored for equal rights in the union. The large states vowed
that they would never grant it. A spirit of conciliation, fair play, and
compromise saved the convention from breaking up. In addition, there
were jealousies between the planting states and the commercial states.
Here, too, compromises had to be worked out. Some of the delegates
feared the growth of democracy and others cherished it. These factions
also had to be placated. At last a plan of government was drafted--the
Constitution of the United States--and submitted to the states for
approval. Only after a long and acrimonious debate did enough states
ratify the instrument to put it into effect. On April 30, 1789, George
Washington was inaugurated first President.

The new government proceeded to fund the old debt of the nation, assume
the debts of the states, found a national bank, lay heavy taxes to pay
the bills, and enact laws protecting American industry and commerce.
Hamilton led the way, but he had not gone far before he encountered
opposition. He found a formidable antagonist in Jefferson. In time two
political parties appeared full armed upon the scene: the Federalists
and the Republicans. For ten years they filled the country with
political debate. In 1800 the Federalists were utterly vanquished by the
Republicans with Jefferson in the lead.

By their proclamations of faith the Republicans favored the states
rather than the new national government, but in practice they added
immensely to the prestige and power of the nation. They purchased
Louisiana from France, they waged a war for commercial independence
against England, they created a second United States Bank, they enacted
the protective tariff of 1816, they declared that Congress had power to
abolish slavery north of the Missouri Compromise line, and they spread
the shield of the Monroe Doctrine between the Western Hemisphere and
Europe.

Still America was a part of European civilization. Currents of opinion
flowed to and fro across the Atlantic. Friends of popular government in
Europe looked to America as the great exemplar of their ideals. Events
in Europe reacted upon thought in the United States. The French
Revolution exerted a profound influence on the course of political
debate. While it was in the stage of mere reform all Americans favored
it. When the king was executed and a radical democracy set up, American
opinion was divided. When France fell under the military dominion of
Napoleon and preyed upon American commerce, the United States made ready
for war.

The conduct of England likewise affected American affairs. In 1793 war
broke out between England and France and raged with only a slight
intermission until 1815. England and France both ravaged American
commerce, but England was the more serious offender because she had
command of the seas. Though Jefferson and Madison strove for peace, the
country was swept into war by the vehemence of the "Young Republicans,"
headed by Clay and Calhoun.

When the armed conflict was closed, one in diplomacy opened. The
autocratic powers of Europe threatened to intervene on behalf of Spain
in her attempt to recover possession of her Latin-American colonies.
Their challenge to America brought forth the Monroe Doctrine. The powers
of Europe were warned not to interfere with the independence or the
republican policies of this hemisphere or to attempt any new
colonization in it. It seemed that nationalism was to have a peaceful
triumph over sectionalism.

=References=

H. Adams, _History of the United States, 1800-1817_ (9 vols.).

K.C. Babcock, _Rise of American Nationality_ (American Nation Series).

E. Channing, _The Jeffersonian System_ (Same Series).

D.C. Gilman, _James Monroe_.

W. Reddaway, _The Monroe Doctrine_.

T. Roosevelt, _Naval War of 1812_.

=Questions=

1. What was the leading feature of Jefferson's political theory?

2. Enumerate the chief measures of his administration.

3. Were the Jeffersonians able to apply their theories? Give the
reasons.

4. Explain the importance of the Mississippi River to Western farmers.

5. Show how events in Europe forced the Louisiana Purchase.

6. State the constitutional question involved in the Louisiana Purchase.

7. Show how American trade was affected by the European war.

8. Compare the policies of Jefferson and Madison.

9. Why did the United States become involved with England rather than
with France?

10. Contrast the causes of the War of 1812 with the results.

11. Give the economic reasons for the attitude of New England.

12. Give five "nationalist" measures of the Republicans. Discuss each in
detail.

13. Sketch the career of John Marshall.

14. Discuss the case of Marbury _vs._ Madison.

15. Summarize Marshall's views on: (_a_) states' rights; and (_b_) a
liberal interpretation of the Constitution.

=Research Topics=

=The Louisiana Purchase.=--Text of Treaty in Macdonald, _Documentary
Source Book_, pp. 279-282. Source materials in Hart, _American History
Told by Contemporaries_, Vol. III, pp. 363-384. Narrative, Henry Adams,
_History of the United States_, Vol. II, pp. 25-115; Elson, _History of
the United States_, pp. 383-388.

=The Embargo and Non-Intercourse Acts.=--Macdonald, pp. 282-288; Adams,
Vol. IV, pp. 152-177; Elson, pp. 394-405.

=Congress and the War of 1812.=--Adams, Vol. VI, pp. 113-198; Elson, pp.
408-450.

=Proposals of the Hartford Convention.=--Macdonald, pp. 293-302.

=Manufactures and the Tariff of 1816.=--Coman, _Industrial History of
the United States_, pp. 184-194.

=The Second United States Bank.=--Macdonald, pp. 302-306.

=Effect of European War on American Trade.=--Callender, _Economic
History of the United States_, pp. 240-250.

=The Monroe Message.=--Macdonald, pp. 318-320.

=Lewis and Clark Expedition.=--R.G. Thwaites, _Rocky Mountain
Explorations_, pp. 92-187. Schafer, _A History of the Pacific Northwest_
(rev. ed.), pp. 29-61.

PART IV. THE WEST AND JACKSONIAN DEMOCRACY

CHAPTER X

THE FARMERS BEYOND THE APPALACHIANS

The nationalism of Hamilton was undemocratic. The democracy of Jefferson
was, in the beginning, provincial. The historic mission of uniting
nationalism and democracy was in the course of time given to new leaders
from a region beyond the mountains, peopled by men and women from all
sections and free from those state traditions which ran back to the
early days of colonization. The voice of the democratic nationalism
nourished in the West was heard when Clay of Kentucky advocated his
American system of protection for industries; when Jackson of Tennessee
condemned nullification in a ringing proclamation that has taken its
place among the great American state papers; and when Lincoln of
Illinois, in a fateful hour, called upon a bewildered people to meet the
supreme test whether this was a nation destined to survive or to perish.
And it will be remembered that Lincoln's party chose for its banner that
earlier device--Republican--which Jefferson had made a sign of power.
The "rail splitter" from Illinois united the nationalism of Hamilton
with the democracy of Jefferson, and his appeal was clothed in the
simple language of the people, not in the sonorous rhetoric which
Webster learned in the schools.

PREPARATION FOR WESTERN SETTLEMENT

=The West and the American Revolution.=--The excessive attention devoted
by historians to the military operations along the coast has obscured
the role played by the frontier in the American Revolution. The action
of Great Britain in closing western land to easy settlement in 1763 was
more than an incident in precipitating the war for independence.
Americans on the frontier did not forget it; when Indians were employed
by England to defend that land, zeal for the patriot cause set the
interior aflame. It was the members of the western vanguard, like Daniel
Boone, John Sevier, and George Rogers Clark, who first understood the
value of the far-away country under the guns of the English forts, where
the Red Men still wielded the tomahawk and the scalping knife. It was
they who gave the East no rest until their vision was seen by the
leaders on the seaboard who directed the course of national policy. It
was one of their number, a seasoned Indian fighter, George Rogers Clark,
who with aid from Virginia seized Kaskaskia and Vincennes and secured
the whole Northwest to the union while the fate of Washington's army was
still hanging in the balance.

=Western Problems at the End of the Revolution.=--The treaty of peace,
signed with Great Britain in 1783, brought the definite cession of the
coveted territory west to the Mississippi River, but it left unsolved
many problems. In the first place, tribes of resentful Indians in the
Ohio region, even though British support was withdrawn at last, had to
be reckoned with; and it was not until after the establishment of the
federal Constitution that a well-equipped army could be provided to
guarantee peace on the border. In the second place, British garrisons
still occupied forts on Lake Erie pending the execution of the terms of
the treaty of 1783--terms which were not fulfilled until after the
ratification of the Jay treaty twelve years later. In the third place,
Virginia, Connecticut, and Massachusetts had conflicting claims to the
land in the Northwest based on old English charters and Indian treaties.
It was only after a bitter contest that the states reached an agreement
to transfer their rights to the government of the United States,
Virginia executing her deed of cession on March 1, 1784. In the fourth
place, titles to lands bought by individuals remained uncertain in the
absence of official maps and records. To meet this last situation,
Congress instituted a systematic survey of the Ohio country, laying it
out into townships, sections of 640 acres each, and quarter sections. In
every township one section of land was set aside for the support of
public schools.

=The Northwest Ordinance.=--The final problem which had to be solved
before settlement on a large scale could be begun was that of governing
the territory. Pioneers who looked with hungry eyes on the fertile
valley of the Ohio could hardly restrain their impatience. Soldiers of
the Revolution, who had been paid for their services in land warrants
entitling them to make entries in the West, called for action.

Congress answered by passing in 1787 the famous Northwest Ordinance
providing for temporary territorial government to be followed by the
creation of a popular assembly as soon as there were five thousand free
males in any district. Eventual admission to the union on an equal
footing with the original states was promised to the new territories.
Religious freedom was guaranteed. The safeguards of trial by jury,
regular judicial procedure, and _habeas corpus_ were established, in order
that the methods of civilized life might take the place of the
rough-and-ready justice of lynch law. During the course of the debate on
the Ordinance, Congress added the sixth article forbidding slavery and
involuntary servitude.

This Charter of the Northwest, so well planned by the Congress under the
Articles of Confederation, was continued in force by the first Congress
under the Constitution in 1789. The following year its essential
provisions, except the ban on slavery, were applied to the territory
south of the Ohio, ceded by North Carolina to the national government,
and in 1798 to the Mississippi territory, once held by Georgia. Thus it
was settled for all time that "the new colonies were not to be exploited
for the benefit of the parent states (any more than for the benefit of
England) but were to be autonomous and cooerdinate commonwealths." This
outcome, bitterly opposed by some Eastern leaders who feared the triumph
of Western states over the seaboard, completed the legal steps necessary
by way of preparation for the flood of settlers.

=The Land Companies, Speculators, and Western Land Tenure.=--As in the
original settlement of America, so in the opening of the West, great
companies and single proprietors of large grants early figured. In 1787
the Ohio Land Company, a New England concern, acquired a million and a
half acres on the Ohio and began operations by planting the town of
Marietta. A professional land speculator, J.C. Symmes, secured a million
acres lower down where the city of Cincinnati was founded. Other
individuals bought up soldiers' claims and so acquired enormous holdings
for speculative purposes. Indeed, there was such a rush to make fortunes
quickly through the rise in land values that Washington was moved to cry
out against the "rage for speculating in and forestalling of land on the
North West of the Ohio," protesting that "scarce a valuable spot within
any tolerable distance of it is left without a claimant." He therefore
urged Congress to fix a reasonable price for the land, not "too
exorbitant and burdensome for real occupiers, but high enough to
discourage monopolizers."

Congress, however, was not prepared to use the public domain for the
sole purpose of developing a body of small freeholders in the West. It
still looked upon the sale of public lands as an important source of
revenue with which to pay off the public debt; consequently it thought
more of instant income than of ultimate results. It placed no limit on
the amount which could be bought when it fixed the price at $2 an acre
in 1796, and it encouraged the professional land operator by making the
first installment only twenty cents an acre in addition to the small
registration and survey fee. On such terms a speculator with a few
thousand dollars could get possession of an enormous plot of land. If he
was fortunate in disposing of it, he could meet the installments, which
were spread over a period of four years, and make a handsome profit for
himself. Even when the credit or installment feature was abolished in
1821 and the price of the land lowered to a cash price of $1.75 an acre,
the opportunity for large speculative purchases continued to attract
capital to land ventures.

=The Development of the Small Freehold.=--The cheapness of land and the
scarcity of labor, nevertheless, made impossible the triumph of the huge
estate with its semi-servile tenantry. For about $45 a man could get a
farm of 160 acres on the installment plan; another payment of $80 was
due in forty days; but a four-year term was allowed for the discharge of
the balance. With a capital of from two to three hundred dollars a
family could embark on a land venture. If it had good crops, it could
meet the deferred payments. It was, however, a hard battle at best. Many
a man forfeited his land through failure to pay the final installment;
yet in the end, in spite of all the handicaps, the small freehold of a
few hundred acres at most became the typical unit of Western
agriculture, except in the planting states of the Gulf. Even the lands
of the great companies were generally broken up and sold in small lots.

The tendency toward moderate holdings, so favored by Western conditions,
was also promoted by a clause in the Northwest Ordinance declaring that
the land of any person dying intestate--that is, without any will
disposing of it--should be divided equally among his descendants.
Hildreth says of this provision: "It established the important
republican principle, not then introduced into all the states, of the
equal distribution of landed as well as personal property." All these
forces combined made the wide dispersion of wealth, in the early days of
the nineteenth century, an American characteristic, in marked contrast
with the European system of family prestige and vast estates based on
the law of primogeniture.

THE WESTERN MIGRATION AND NEW STATES

=The People.=--With government established, federal arms victorious over
the Indians, and the lands surveyed for sale, the way was prepared for
the immigrants. They came with a rush. Young New Englanders, weary of
tilling the stony soil of their native states, poured through New York
and Pennsylvania, some settling on the northern bank of the Ohio but
most of them in the Lake region. Sons and daughters of German farmers in
Pennsylvania and many a redemptioner who had discharged his bond of
servitude pressed out into Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, or beyond. From
the exhausted fields and the clay hills of the Southern states came
pioneers of English and Scotch-Irish descent, the latter in great
numbers. Indeed one historian of high authority has ventured to say that
"the rapid expansion of the United States from a coast strip to a
continental area is largely a Scotch-Irish achievement." While native
Americans of mixed stocks led the way into the West, it was not long
before immigrants direct from Europe, under the stimulus of company
enterprise, began to filter into the new settlements in increasing
numbers.

The types of people were as various as the nations they represented.
Timothy Flint, who published his entertaining _Recollections_ in 1826,
found the West a strange mixture of all sorts and conditions of people.
Some of them, he relates, had been hunters in the upper world of the
Mississippi, above the falls of St. Anthony. Some had been still farther
north, in Canada. Still others had wandered from the South--the Gulf of
Mexico, the Red River, and the Spanish country. French boatmen and
trappers, Spanish traders from the Southwest, Virginia planters with
their droves of slaves mingled with English, German, and Scotch-Irish
farmers. Hunters, forest rangers, restless bordermen, and squatters,
like the foaming combers of an advancing tide, went first. Then followed
the farmers, masters of the ax and plow, with their wives who shared
every burden and hardship and introduced some of the features of
civilized life. The hunters and rangers passed on to new scenes; the
home makers built for all time.

=The Number of Immigrants.=--There were no official stations on the
frontier to record the number of immigrants who entered the West during
the decades following the American Revolution. But travelers of the time
record that every road was "crowded" with pioneers and their families,
their wagons and cattle; and that they were seldom out of the sound of
the snapping whip of the teamster urging forward his horses or the crack
of the hunter's rifle as he brought down his evening meal. "During the
latter half of 1787," says Coman, "more than nine hundred boats floated
down the Ohio carrying eighteen thousand men, women, and children, and
twelve thousand horses, sheep, and cattle, and six hundred and fifty
wagons." Other lines of travel were also crowded and with the passing
years the flooding tide of home seekers rose higher and higher.

=The Western Routes.=--Four main routes led into the country beyond the
Appalachians. The Genesee road, beginning at Albany, ran almost due west
to the present site of Buffalo on Lake Erie, through a level country. In
the dry season, wagons laden with goods could easily pass along it into
northern Ohio. A second route, through Pittsburgh, was fed by three
eastern branches, one starting at Philadelphia, one at Baltimore, and
another at Alexandria. A third main route wound through the mountains
from Alexandria to Boonesboro in Kentucky and then westward across the
Ohio to St. Louis. A fourth, the most famous of them all, passed through
the Cumberland Gap and by branches extended into the Cumberland valley
and the Kentucky country.

Of these four lines of travel, the Pittsburgh route offered the most
advantages. Pioneers, no matter from what section they came, when once
they were on the headwaters of the Ohio and in possession of a flatboat,
could find a quick and easy passage into all parts of the West and
Southwest. Whether they wanted to settle in Ohio, Kentucky, or western
Tennessee they could find their way down the drifting flood to their
destination or at least to some spot near it. Many people from the South
as well as the Northern and Middle states chose this route; so it came
about that the sons and daughters of Virginia and the Carolinas mingled
with those of New York, Pennsylvania, and New England in the settlement
of the Northwest territory.

=The Methods of Travel into the West.=--Many stories giving exact
descriptions of methods of travel into the West in the early days have
been preserved. The country was hardly opened before visitors from the
Old World and from the Eastern states, impelled by curiosity, made their
way to the very frontier of civilization and wrote books to inform or
amuse the public. One of them, Gilbert Imlay, an English traveler, has
given us an account of the Pittsburgh route as he found it in 1791. "If
a man ... " he writes, "has a family or goods of any sort to remove, his
best way, then, would be to purchase a waggon and team of horses to
carry his property to Redstone Old Fort or to Pittsburgh, according as
he may come from the Northern or Southern states. A good waggon will
cost, at Philadelphia, about L10 ... and the horses about L12 each; they
would cost something more both at Baltimore and Alexandria. The waggon
may be covered with canvass, and if it is the choice of the people, they
may sleep in it of nights with the greatest safety. But if they dislike
that, there are inns of accommodation the whole distance on the
different roads.... The provisions I would purchase in the same manner
[that is, from the farmers along the road]; and by having two or three
camp kettles and stopping every evening when the weather is fine upon
the brink of some rivulet and by kindling a fire they may soon dress
their own food.... This manner of journeying is so far from being
disagreeable that in a fine season it is extremely pleasant." The
immigrant once at Pittsburgh or Wheeling could then buy a flatboat of a
size required for his goods and stock, and drift down the current to his
journey's end.

[Illustration: ROADS AND TRAILS INTO THE WESTERN TERRITORY]

=The Admission of Kentucky and Tennessee.=--When the eighteenth century
drew to a close, Kentucky had a population larger than Delaware, Rhode
Island, or New Hampshire. Tennessee claimed 60,000 inhabitants. In 1792
Kentucky took her place as a state beside her none too kindly parent,
Virginia. The Eastern Federalists resented her intrusion; but they took
some consolation in the admission of Vermont because the balance of
Eastern power was still retained.

As if to assert their independence of old homes and conservative ideas
the makers of Kentucky's first constitution swept aside the landed
qualification on the suffrage and gave the vote to all free white males.
Four years later, Kentucky's neighbor to the south, Tennessee, followed
this step toward a wider democracy. After encountering fierce opposition
from the Federalists, Tennessee was accepted as the sixteenth state.

=Ohio.=--The door of the union had hardly opened for Tennessee when
another appeal was made to Congress, this time from the pioneers in
Ohio. The little posts founded at Marietta and Cincinnati had grown into
flourishing centers of trade. The stream of immigrants, flowing down the
river, added daily to their numbers and the growing settlements all
around poured produce into their markets to be exchanged for "store
goods." After the Indians were disposed of in 1794 and the last British
soldier left the frontier forts under the terms of the Jay treaty of
1795, tiny settlements of families appeared on Lake Erie in the "Western
Reserve," a region that had been retained by Connecticut when she
surrendered her other rights in the Northwest.

At the close of the century, Ohio, claiming a population of more than
50,000, grew discontented with its territorial status. Indeed, two years
before the enactment of the Northwest Ordinance, squatters in that
region had been invited by one John Emerson to hold a convention after
the fashion of the men of Hartford, Windsor, and Wethersfield in old
Connecticut and draft a frame of government for themselves. This true
son of New England declared that men "have an undoubted right to pass
into every vacant country and there to form their constitution and that
from the confederation of the whole United States Congress is not
empowered to forbid them." This grand convention was never held because
the heavy hand of the government fell upon the leaders; but the spirit
of John Emerson did not perish. In November, 1802, a convention chosen
by voters, assembled under the authority of Congress at Chillicothe,
drew up a constitution. It went into force after a popular ratification.
The roll of the convention bore such names as Abbot, Baldwin, Cutler,
Huntington, Putnam, and Sargent, and the list of counties from which
they came included Adams, Fairfield, Hamilton, Jefferson, Trumbull, and
Washington, showing that the new America in the West was peopled and led
by the old stock. In 1803 Ohio was admitted to the union.

=Indiana and Illinois.=--As in the neighboring state, the frontier in
Indiana advanced northward from the Ohio, mainly under the leadership,
however, of settlers from the South--restless Kentuckians hoping for
better luck in a newer country and pioneers from the far frontiers of
Virginia and North Carolina. As soon as a tier of counties swinging
upward like the horns of the moon against Ohio on the east and in the
Wabash Valley on the west was fairly settled, a clamor went up for
statehood. Under the authority of an act of Congress in 1816 the
Indianians drafted a constitution and inaugurated their government at
Corydon. "The majority of the members of the convention," we are told by
a local historian, "were frontier farmers who had a general idea of what
they wanted and had sense enough to let their more erudite colleagues
put it into shape."

Two years later, the pioneers of Illinois, also settled upward from the
Ohio, like Indiana, elected their delegates to draft a constitution.
Leadership in the convention, quite properly, was taken by a man born in
New York and reared in Tennessee; and the constitution as finally
drafted "was in its principal provisions a copy of the then existing
constitutions of Kentucky, Ohio, and Indiana.... Many of the articles
are exact copies in wording although differently arranged and
numbered."

=Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama.=--Across the Mississippi to the
far south, clearing and planting had gone on with much bustle and
enterprise. The cotton and sugar lands of Louisiana, opened by French
and Spanish settlers, were widened in every direction by planters with
their armies of slaves from the older states. New Orleans, a good market
and a center of culture not despised even by the pioneer, grew apace. In
1810 the population of lower Louisiana was over 75,000. The time had
come, said the leaders of the people, to fulfill the promise made to
France in the treaty of cession; namely, to grant to the inhabitants of
the territory statehood and the rights of American citizens. Federalists
from New England still having a voice in Congress, if somewhat weaker,
still protested in tones of horror. "I am compelled to declare it as my
deliberate opinion," pronounced Josiah Quincy in the House of
Representatives, "that if this bill [to admit Louisiana] passes, the
bonds of this Union are virtually dissolved ... that as it will be the
right of all, so it will be the duty of some [states] to prepare
definitely for a separation; amicably if they can, violently if they
must.... It is a death blow to the Constitution. It may afterwards
linger; but lingering, its fate will, at no very distant period, be
consummated." Federalists from New York like those from New England had
their doubts about the wisdom of admitting Western states; but the party
of Jefferson and Madison, having the necessary majority, granted the
coveted statehood to Louisiana in 1812.

When, a few years later, Mississippi and Alabama knocked at the doors of
the union, the Federalists had so little influence, on account of their
conduct during the second war with England, that spokesmen from the
Southwest met a kindlier reception at Washington. Mississippi, in 1817,
and Alabama, in 1819, took their places among the United States of
America. Both of them, while granting white manhood suffrage, gave their
constitutions the tone of the old East by providing landed
qualifications for the governor and members of the legislature.

=Missouri.=--Far to the north in the Louisiana purchase, a new
commonwealth was rising to power. It was peopled by immigrants who came
down the Ohio in fleets of boats or crossed the Mississippi from
Kentucky and Tennessee. Thrifty Germans from Pennsylvania, hardy farmers
from Virginia ready to work with their own hands, freemen seeking
freemen's homes, planters with their slaves moving on from worn-out
fields on the seaboard, came together in the widening settlements of the
Missouri country. Peoples from the North and South flowed together,
small farmers and big planters mingling in one community. When their
numbers had reached sixty thousand or more, they precipitated a contest
over their admission to the union, "ringing an alarm bell in the night,"
as Jefferson phrased it. The favorite expedient of compromise with
slavery was brought forth in Congress once more. Maine consequently was
brought into the union without slavery and Missouri with slavery. At the
same time there was drawn westward through the rest of the Louisiana
territory a line separating servitude from slavery.

THE SPIRIT OF THE FRONTIER

=Land Tenure and Liberty.=--Over an immense western area there developed
an unbroken system of freehold farms. In the Gulf states and the lower
Mississippi Valley, it is true, the planter with his many slaves even
led in the pioneer movement; but through large sections of Tennessee and
Kentucky, as well as upper Georgia and Alabama, and all throughout the
Northwest territory the small farmer reigned supreme. In this immense
dominion there sprang up a civilization without caste or class--a body
of people all having about the same amount of this world's goods and
deriving their livelihood from one source: the labor of their own hands
on the soil. The Northwest territory alone almost equaled in area all
the original thirteen states combined, except Georgia, and its system of
agricultural economy was unbroken by plantations and feudal estates. "In
the subdivision of the soil and the great equality of condition," as
Webster said on more than one occasion, "lay the true basis, most
certainly, of popular government." There was the undoubted source of
Jacksonian democracy.

[Illustration: A LOG CABIN--LINCOLN'S BIRTHPLACE]

=The Characteristics of the Western People.=--Travelers into the
Northwest during the early years of the nineteenth century were agreed
that the people of that region were almost uniformly marked by the
characteristics common to an independent yeomanry. A close observer thus
recorded his impressions: "A spirit of adventurous enterprise, a
willingness to go through any hardship to accomplish an object....
Independence of thought and action. They have felt the influence of
these principles from their childhood. Men who can endure anything; that
have lived almost without restraint, free as the mountain air or as the
deer and the buffalo of their forests, and who know they are Americans
all.... An apparent roughness which some would deem rudeness of
manner.... Where there is perfect equality in a neighborhood of people
who know little about each other's previous history or ancestry but
where each is lord of the soil he cultivates. Where a log cabin is all
that the best of families can expect to have for years and of course can
possess few of the external decorations which have so much influence in
creating a diversity of rank in society. These circumstances have laid
the foundation for that equality of intercourse, simplicity of manners,
want of deference, want of reserve, great readiness to make
acquaintances, freedom of speech, indisposition to brook real or
imaginary insults which one witnesses among people of the West."

This equality, this independence, this rudeness so often described by
the traveler as marking a new country, were all accentuated by the
character of the settlers themselves. Traces of the fierce, unsociable,
eagle-eyed, hard-drinking hunter remained. The settlers who followed the
hunter were, with some exceptions, soldiers of the Revolutionary army,
farmers of the "middling order," and mechanics from the towns,--English,
Scotch-Irish, Germans,--poor in possessions and thrown upon the labor of
their own hands for support. Sons and daughters from well-to-do Eastern
homes sometimes brought softer manners; but the equality of life and the
leveling force of labor in forest and field soon made them one in spirit
with their struggling neighbors. Even the preachers and teachers, who
came when the cabins were raised in the clearings and rude churches and
schoolhouses were built, preached sermons and taught lessons that
savored of the frontier, as any one may know who reads Peter
Cartwright's _A Muscular Christian_ or Eggleston's _The Hoosier
Schoolmaster_.

THE WEST AND THE EAST MEET

=The East Alarmed.=--A people so independent as the Westerners and so
attached to local self-government gave the conservative East many a rude
shock, setting gentlemen in powdered wigs and knee breeches agog with
the idea that terrible things might happen in the Mississippi Valley.
Not without good grounds did Washington fear that "a touch of a feather
would turn" the Western settlers away from the seaboard to the
Spaniards; and seriously did he urge the East not to neglect them, lest
they be "drawn into the arms of, or be dependent upon foreigners."
Taking advantage of the restless spirit in the Southwest, Aaron Burr,
having disgraced himself by killing Alexander Hamilton in a duel, laid
wild plans, if not to bring about a secession in that region, at least
to build a state of some kind out of the Spanish dominions adjoining
Louisiana. Frightened at such enterprises and fearing the dominance of
the West, the Federalists, with a few conspicuous exceptions, opposed
equality between the sections. Had their narrow views prevailed, the
West, with its new democracy, would have been held in perpetual tutelage<