Part 20

At the era of the Revolution, thirteen colonies had been planted. These were Virginia, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, North and South Carolina, and Georgia. Virginia, the first, was settled in 1607, and Georgia, the last, in 1732. Different objects were proposed in the establishment of the different colonies. The leading object of some was pecuniary profit. They were induced, either by associated or individual proprietors, who themselves remained in England, to come to America, with the hope of profitable returns for the advance of their capital. But the more northern colonies came on their own concern, at their own expense, and with reference to the enjoyment of freedom and peace in religion, which they could not find at home.

Now, was it to be expected that those who had left home, and all its endearments, for the sake of enjoying a larger liberty, would consent to have that liberty abridged, especially after having tasted its blessings for years? If the Pilgrim Fathers had such notions themselves, was it to be supposed that their children would cherish less manly and patriotic sentiments? The spirit of liberty does not easily die, where there is aliment to keep it alive. The blood of freemen, or those who aspire to freedom, instead of becoming weaker, as it flows down in successive generations, usually becomes more pure and more excitable. This was verified in the history of the colonies, anterior to the Revolution. They were men of whom the principles of liberty had taken strong hold. Their distance from the mother-country--her neglect of them--the exercise of civil and religious freedom for a number of years--all served to excite and strengthen a desire for independence. Such an event was the natural result of the principles with which the colonies began their career. It was the natural result of the physical courage and strength acquired in felling forests, resisting savages, and in carrying out those plans and enterprises in which a young, ardent, and ambitious people are likely to engage.

2. Their forms of government were conducive to independence.

In the settlement of the colonies, three forms of government were established. These were usually denominated Charter, Proprietary, and Royal governments. The difference arose from the different circumstances under which the colonies were settled, as well as the different objects of the first emigrants. The Charter governments were confined to New England. The Proprietary governments were those of Maryland, Pennsylvania, the Carolinas, and the Jerseys. The others were royal governments, or those which were immediately under the British crown.[28]

As early as 1619, only twelve years from its settlement, a provincial legislature, in which the colonists were represented, was introduced into Virginia. In Plymouth and in Massachusetts, the colonies organized their body, politic and social, upon principles of perfect equality. And, as the Puritans spread themselves over New England, they gave to the distinct communities which they established, constitutions still more democratic. In January, 1639, three years from the commencement of the Connecticut colony, the planters on Connecticut river convened at Hartford, and formed a system of government which continued, with scarcely any alterations, to the year 1818. Of this system, Dr. Trumbull observes: "With such wisdom did our venerable ancestors provide for the freedom and liberties of themselves and their posterity. Thus happily did they guard against every encroachment on the rights of the subject. This, probably, is one of the most free and happy constitutions of civil government ever formed. The formation of it, at so early a period, when the light of liberty was wholly darkened in most parts of the world, and the rights of man were so little understood in others, does great honor to their ability, integrity, and love of freedom."

In Maryland and Pennsylvania, the first assemblies established a popular representation, and in all their political regulations proceeded upon broad views of civil freedom. The same remark, says Mr. Walsh, may be extended to the Carolinas and New York.

The very first principles, then, of the colonists in relation to government were anti-monarchical. In their incipient colonial state, they had the feelings of freemen; and all their institutions, as far as they were allowed to carry them, spoke of liberty and equality.

This spirit was never lost to the colonies. In the variety of fortune which they subsequently encountered--in every change of monarch abroad--in every shift of rulers at home--through royal smiles and royal frowns--in times of war and in times of peace--their love of liberty continued unabated, and even increased. Thus early began those sentiments of freedom and independence which, uniting in their course with other streams, ended at length in a deep, broad, irresistible current against British oppression.

3. Influence of the expenses incurred by the colonies in their settlements, and in their several wars and those of the mother-country.

"All the thirteen colonies," says Mr. Walsh, "with the exception of Georgia, were established, and had attained to considerable strength, without the _slightest aid_ from the treasury of the mother-country."

Neither the crown nor the parliament paid a dollar towards purchasing the soil of the Indians--the original masters of that soil. These purchases were made by the colonists themselves. The settlement of the province of Massachusetts Bay alone cost two hundred thousand pounds--an enormous sum at the era at which it was effected. Lord Baltimore expended forty thousand pounds in his establishment of the colony of Maryland. On that of Virginia, immense wealth was lavished by the first settlers. The first planters of Connecticut consumed great estates in purchasing lands of the Indians and in making settlements.

In like manner, when assailed by fierce and warlike tribes, the mother-country furnished no aid whatever--neither troops nor money. She erected no fortifications; entered into no negotiations, and manifested no sympathy, or even interest, in the fate of her offspring. Some of the most considerable Indian wars in which the colonies were involved, were the immediate result of the rashness and cupidity of the royal governors. That, for instance, which is styled 'King William's War'--memorable in the annals of New Hampshire particularly--was owing to a wanton predatory expedition of Andros, in 1688, against the possessions of a French individual, situate between Penobscot and Nova Scotia.

The testimony of Lord Brougham on this subject is worthy of special notice. In his work on 'Colonial Policy,' he observes:

"The old colonies of North America, besides defraying the whole expenses of their internal administration, were enabled from their situation to render very active assistance to the mother-country upon several occasions, not peculiarly interesting to themselves. They uniformly asserted, that they _would_ never refuse contributions, even for purposes strictly imperial, provided these were constitutionally demanded. Nor did they stop at mere professions of zeal.

"The whole expense of civil government in the British North American colonies, previous to the Revolution, did not amount to eighty thousand pounds sterling, which was paid by the produce of their taxes. The military establishments, the garrisons and the forts in the old colonies, cost the mother-country nothing."

From the foregoing facts, nothing is clearer than that the colonies were obliged, from their earliest existence, to take care of themselves. At first, Great Britain thought little of them, and cared, if possible, still less. They were obliged to repel hostile tribes without aid, and defend themselves against the aggressions of more civilized powers. And, moreover, they were compelled to carry on not only their own wars, but those of the mother-country, and then pay the expenses.

It may well be asked, what was the natural and almost necessary consequence of such treatment? Keep a child in leading-strings, and it will be long ere it walks. Teach him to walk early, and he will soon decline your aid. Let a father send forth his son to take care of himself, and perchance the next he hears of him, he will learn that his fortune is made, and no longer will he wish for parental assistance; and fortunate will it be if the son, under a sense of former parental indifference and unkindness, does not, at length, feel a correspondent alienation from the parent.

But whether these illustrations are apposite or not, certain it is, that the colonists at length learned the important fact, that they could take care of themselves. To this they had been driven. The next natural feeling to this superiority over the difficulties and trials which they encountered in their early settlement of the country, was a willingness, and even _wish_, to be independent of the parent by whom they had been so unkindly neglected. Great Britain might, therefore, thank herself for the spirit of independence which at length appeared among the colonies; her line of policy engendered and matured it.

4. Measures of oppression.

"Within little more than a generation from the commencement of the plantations," says Mr. Walsh, "the royal government began those formal inquiries into their population and manufactures, which were so often renewed, until the period of our revolution." The object or occasion of these inquiries was twofold--a jealousy, lest the colonies should grow too fast; and, secondly, a desire to monopolize, for the benefit of Great Britain, all their trade, and the proceeds of their manufacturing industry.

The various acts of monopoly which passed parliament during a series of years, it is not necessary to particularize. They uniformly bore heavily on the commercial and manufacturing enterprise of the colonies, and were designed "to keep them in a firmer dependence upon England"--"to render them more beneficial and advantageous"--"to employ and increase the English shipping"--"to make a vent for English manufactures."

After the peace of 1763, a still more grinding policy was proposed--that of _taxing_ the colonies, with the avowed purpose of drawing a revenue into the royal exchequer, and on the plausible, yet unwarrantable ground, that Great Britain had contracted a debt in their defence.

Hitherto, when money was wanted in the colonies, the parliament of England had been content to ask for it by a formal requisition upon the _colonial legislatures_, and they had supplied it with a willing hand. But now, it was thought that a shorter method of obtaining it might be resorted to with better effect.

Before proceeding to notice the measures adopted with reference to the foregoing object, it is necessary to advert to what were denominated _writs of assistance_, which were orders issued by the superior court of the province, requiring the sheriffs and other civil officers to assist the person to whom it was granted, in breaking open and searching every place, even private dwellings, if suspected of containing prohibited goods.

The first application for a writ of this kind was made by the deputy collector at Salem in November, 1760. Doubts being expressed by the court as to the legality of the writ, or the power of the court to grant it, the application was deferred to the next term, when the question was to be argued.

At the appointed time, Mr. Gridley, a distinguished lawyer, appeared for the crown; Mr. Thatcher and Mr. Otis for the merchants. The trial took place in the council chamber of the old Town-house in Boston. The judges were five in number, including Lieutenant-Governor Hutchinson, who presided as chief justice; and the room was filled with all the officers of government and the principal citizens, to hear the arguments in a cause that inspired the deepest solicitude. The case was opened by Mr. Gridley, who argued it with much learning, ingenuity, and dignity; making all his reason depend upon this consideration, "That the parliament of Great Britain was the sovereign legislator of the British empire." He was followed by Mr. Thatcher on the opposite side, whose reasoning was ingenious and able, delivered in a tone of great mildness and moderation. "But," in the language of President Adams, "Otis was a flame of fire; with a promptitude of classical allusion, a depth of research, a rapid summary of historical events and dates, a profusion of legal authorities, a prophetic glance into futurity, and a rapid torrent of impetuous eloquence, he hurried away all before him."

"I will to my dying day," said Otis, among other things--"I will to my dying day oppose, with all the power and faculties God has given me, all such instruments of slavery on the one hand and villany on the other. It appears to me the worst instrument of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty, and the fundamental principles of law, that was ever found in an English law-book."

The occasion was intensely exciting--the liberties of the people were in danger--their dwellings, those sanctuaries where every man should feel himself safe, and his effects--all were in jeopardy. And the vast throng gathered on the occasion so thought--especially as their excited feelings became more intense under the thrilling appeals of the eloquent Otis. "Every man of an immensely crowded audience," says President Adams, "appeared to me to go away, as I did, ready to take arms against writs of assistance. _Then and there was the first scene of the first act of opposition to the arbitrary claims of Great Britain._"

The court postponed a decision of the question until the following term; and in the mean time wrote to Great Britain for information on the subject. Writs were afterwards granted, but were extremely unpopular. In Connecticut writs of assistance, it is said, were never granted.

The next measure of oppression was the passage of the famous _stamp act_. Such a project had been suggested during the administrations of Lord Walpole and Mr. Pitt; but they were too sagacious to venture upon a measure at once so odious and unjust. Said Walpole, "I will leave the taxation of America to some of my successors, who may have more _courage_ than I have." And said Pitt, "I will never burn my fingers with an American stamp act." To the successor of Mr. Pitt, Lord Grenville, was reserved the honor, or rather the infamy, of such a project.

When the bill was ushered into the House of Commons, petitions from Virginia, Connecticut, and South Carolina, in every way respectful, but in tone firm and decided, were offered in opposition to it. But the house refused even to receive them, on the ground that the _right_ of parliament to tax the colonies was denied; and, secondly, that it was contrary to a rule of the house "_to receive any petition against a money-bill_."

The debate therefore proceeded. The chief advocates of the bill were the prime minister and Charles Townshend. In the opposition were Mr. Pitt--who, however, was absent by reason of sickness--General Conway, Alderman Beckford, Colonel Barre, Mr. Jackson, Sir William Meredith, &c. Conway and Beckford opposed the bill on the ground of its _injustice_; Colonel Barre and others on the ground of its _inexpediency_. The purpose of the minister, however, was fixed; and, rallying his surprised and half-hesitating troops, he took the question--a large majority expressed in favor of the bill--two hundred and fifty for, and fifty against it. On its coming into the House of Lords, it received the entire concurrence of that body, and on the 22d of March obtained the royal assent.

This act, so celebrated in the annals of American history, both as an act of flagrant injustice, on the part of the British parliament, and one of the _proximate causes_ of the Revolution, consisted of fifty-five specific duties, laid on as many different species of instruments, in which paper was used; such as notes, bonds, mortgages, deeds, university degrees, licenses, advertisements in newspapers, and even almanacs; varying from _one half-penny_ up to _six pounds_. As an illustration of the heavy burdens designed to be put upon the colonies by this act, it may be stated, that previous to the passage of the act, a ream of common printed bailbonds cost fifteen pounds--_stamped_, one hundred. A ream of _stamped_ policies of insurance amounted to one hundred and ninety pounds--of common ones, without stamps, twenty. A piece of paper, or parchment, used as a diploma, or certificate of a degree taken in any university, academy, or college, was taxed _two pounds_. For a piece of paper for a license for retailing spirituous liquors, _twenty shillings_ were demanded. For one for a license for selling wine only, _four pounds_; for wine and spirituous liquors, _three pounds_. For letters of probate, administration, or guardianship, _ten shillings_. For a common deed, conveying not exceeding one hundred acres of land, _one shilling and sixpence_. For a newspaper, containing half a sheet or less, _one half-penny_; one sheet, _one penny_. Pamphlets, _one shilling_ per sheet. Advertisements, _two shillings_ each. Almanacs, _fourpence_.

This act was ordered to take effect on the following 1st of November. Meanwhile, the people in various parts of the country were anxious to express their detestation of the measure, which the lapse of a few months was to bring into operation. One day in the month of August, the effigy of Andrew Oliver, the proposed distributor of stamps in Massachusetts, was found hanging on a tree, afterwards well known by the name of _Liberty-tree_, in the main street of Boston. At night it was taken down, and carried on a bier amidst the acclamations of an immense collection of people through the court-house, down King street, to a small brick building, supposed to have been erected for the reception of the detested stamps. This building being soon levelled with the ground, the rioters next attacked Mr. Oliver's house; and having broken the windows, entered it, and destroyed part of the furniture.

The house of Benjamin Hallowell, jun., comptroller of the customs, was next entered; and, elevated and emboldened by liquors found in his cellar, the mob, with inflamed rage, directed their course to the house of Lieutenant-Governor Hutchinson, who, after vainly attempting resistance, was constrained to depart, to save his life. By four in the morning, one of the best houses in the province was completely in ruins, nothing remaining but the bare walls and floors. The plate, family pictures, most of the furniture, the wearing apparel, about nine hundred pounds sterling, and the manuscripts and books which Mr. Hutchinson had been thirty years collecting, besides many public papers in his custody, were either carried off or destroyed. The whole damage was estimated at two thousand five hundred pounds.

On the arrival of the 1st of November, on which the stamp act was to go into effect, the day was ushered in at Boston by the tolling of the bells; many shops and stores were shut, and effigies of the authors and friends of that act were carried about the streets, and afterwards torn in pieces by the populace.

Nor was Massachusetts alone; the obnoxious act received similar treatment in the other colonies. On the 24th of August, a gazette was published at Providence, with _vox Populi, vox Dei_, for a motto; effigies were exhibited, and in the evening cut down and burned. In Portsmouth, New Castle, and other places, the bells were tolled to denote the decease of Liberty. In Connecticut, Mr. Ingersoll, the stamp-master, was compelled to resign. The spirit manifested in New York produced a similar resignation. Offended with the conduct of Lieutenant-Governor Colden, in relation to the stamp act, many of the inhabitants assembled one evening, and breaking open his coach-house, took out his coach, which, with his effigy, they burned, amid the acclamations of several thousand spectators.

In Philadelphia, on the appearance of the ships having the stamps on board, all the ships in the harbor hoisted their colors half-mast high; the bells were muffled, and continued to toll till evening. Similar demonstrations of dissatisfaction were made in numerous other places.

The opposition to the stamp act was so universal and so formidable, as to prevent all hope of its successful operation; had this measure been persisted in, the Revolution in America would doubtless have dated at an earlier day.

Fortunately for the American colonies, the administration of Lord Grenville terminated in July, 1765--that minister being succeeded by the Marquis of Rockingham, while the Duke of Grafton and General Conway were made secretaries of state.

To this new ministry it early became apparent that, in respect to the colonies, a crisis was now at hand; either existing measures must be relaxed, or a resort must be had to arms. The former being deemed the wiser plan, a repeal of the stamp act was moved in parliament, and, on the 18th of March, passed the House by a majority of two hundred and seventy-five to one hundred and sixty-seven. In the House of Lords, the majority was one hundred and five to seventy-one.

In America, the intelligence of the repeal was received with acclamations of the most sincere and heart-felt gratitude, by all classes of people. Public thanksgivings were offered up in all the churches. The resolutions, which had been passed on the subject of importations, were rescinded, and their trade with the mother-country was immediately renewed with increased vigor. The home-spun dresses were given to the poor, and once more the colonists appeared clad in the produce of British looms.

In July, 1766, the Marquis of Rockingham retired from the cabinet, and a new ministry was formed under the direction of William Pitt--the Duke of Grafton being placed at the head of the treasury, and Charles Townshend made chancellor of the exchequer. In May, 1767, the latter revived the scheme of taxing America, proposing to impose duties on glass, paper, tea, &c., imported into the colonies. The bill passed both houses without much opposition, the Earl of Chatham being confined at that time by sickness.

The news of this measure, on reaching America, produced the greatest possible excitement. Counter-measures were immediately proposed. Resort was had, as at a former day, to non-importation, the effects of which had been so severely felt by the traders in England, under the stamp act. Boston, as before, took the lead. At a town-meeting, held in October, it was voted that measures should be immediately taken to promote the establishment of domestic manufactories, by encouraging the consumption of all articles of American manufacture. They also agreed to purchase no articles of foreign growth or manufacture, but such as were absolutely indispensable. New York and Philadelphia soon followed the example of Boston; and, in a short time, the merchants themselves entered into associations to import nothing from Great Britain but articles that necessity required.

Several events, about this time, served to increase the excitement of the colonies, especially in Boston. Among these may be mentioned the arrival, at the latter place, of a man-of-war and transports, from Halifax, with nine hundred troops on board.