Part 1022

ALSO IN: _G. L. Beer, The Commercial Policy of England toward the American Colonies (Columbia College Studies, volume 3, number 2)._

_W. B. Weeden, Economic and Social History of New England, chapter 7 (volume 1)._

_J. E. T. Rogers, Economic Interpretation of History, chapter 15._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690. The First American Congress. King William's War.

"After the accession [in England, A. D. 1689] of William and Mary, hostilities were declared between France and England, which extended to America; and thus began the first inter-colonial war [commonly known in American history as King William's War]. The French soon planned an invasion of Boston and New York. … On the 8th of February, 1690, a war-party, who had come stealthily from Canada, entered the open gates of the town of Schenectady, when it was snowing, and broke the stillness of midnight with the terrible yell and whoop of the savages. Men, women, and children, for two hours, were mercilessly butchered. Their dwellings were burned. The whole town was sacked. … The intelligence flew through the colonies. … Schenectady was the Fort Sumter of that day. The event had a political effect. It shamed the factions in New York at least into a truce. It roused a spirit of patriotism. The governor of Massachusetts urged, in letters to other colonies, the necessity for immediate action to provide for the common defence. … The General Court [of Massachusetts], in view of organizing a joint effort of the colonies, proposed to hold a congress. The call for a meeting is dated the 19th of March, 1690. It relates, that their majesties' subjects had been invaded by the French and Indians; that many of the colonists had been barbarously murdered, and were in danger of greater mischiefs; and it proposed, as a measure of prevention, that the neighboring colonies, and Virginia, Maryland, and the parts adjacent, should be invited to meet at New York, and conclude on suitable methods for assisting each other for the safety of the whole land. The governor of New York was desired to transmit this invitation to the southern colonies. Such was the first call for a general congress in America. {3172} It is free from narrowness. It is liberal in its spirit, simple in its terms, and comprehensive in its object. … The call elicited from several colonies interesting replies. Governor Hinckley, of Plymouth, entered with zeal into the measure, and, though the General Court was not in session, appointed a commissioner. The Quaker-governor of Rhode Island, Henry Bull, replied in an excellent spirit. … Though the time was too short to convene the assembly for the appointment of commissioners, he promised the aid of that colony to the utmost of its ability to resist the French and Indians. The head of the convention of Maryland wrote, that it was the design of the assembly to send arms and men to aid in the general defence. … President Bacon, of Virginia, replied, that the proposition would require the action of the assembly, and that nothing would be done until the arrival of the daily expected governor. The replies to the invitation were cordial. The commissioners of four colonies [Massachusetts, Plymouth, Connecticut, and New York] met at New York. … The deliberations led to a unanimous result. On the 1st of May, an agreement was signed by the delegates, in behalf of the five colonies [including Maryland under its promise], to raise a force of 855 men for the strengthening of Albany, and, 'by the help of Almighty God, subduing the French and Indian enemies.' It was agreed, that the lieutenant-governor of New York should name the commander of this force; that it should not be employed on any other service without the consent of the five colonies; and that the officers should be required to preserve among their men good order, punish vice, keep the Sabbath, and maintain the worship of God. No proposition appears to have been entertained for a permanent organization. … Efforts were made to obtain additional aid from New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. … I need only state, as the result of this congress, that it was resolved to attempt the reduction of Canada by two lines of attack,—one to conquer Acadia, and then to move on Quebec; and the other, by the route of Lake Champlain, to assault Montreal. The New England forces under Sir William Phips, assigned to the first route, captured Acadia and Port Royal, and sailed for Quebec, in the expectation of being aided by the other forces who marched by the Champlain route. But they, under Fitz-John Winthrop, with the title of major, were not successful. Leisler [see NEW YORK: A. D. 1689-1691], with characteristic rashness, accused the commander of treachery; while the officers charged the commissary, Jacob Milborne, of New York, with inefficiency in procuring supplies. The failure of Winthrop occasioned the retreat of Phips."

_R. Frothingham, The Rise of the Republic of the United States, chapter 3._

ALSO IN: _Doc. History of New York, volume 2 (Leisler's administration)._

_Documents relating to Colonial History of New York, volume 3._

See, also, CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1696-1697. The Board of Trade for the Supervision of the Colonies. Plans of Colonial Union by Penn and others.

"The king attempted a more efficient method of administering the colonies; and, in May 1696, a Board of Commissioners for Trade and Plantations, consisting of the chancellor, the president of the privy council, the keeper of the privy seal, the two secretaries of state, and eight special commissioners, was called into being. To William Blathwayte, who had drafted the new charter of Massachusetts, John Locke, and the rest of the commission, instructions were given by the crown 'to inquire into the means of making the colonies most useful and beneficial to England; into the staples and manufactures which may be encouraged there, and the means of diverting them from trades which May prove prejudicial to England; to examine into and weigh the acts of the assemblies; to set down the usefulness or mischief of them to the crown, the kingdom, or the plantations themselves; to require an account of all the moneys given for public uses by the assemblies of the plantations, and how the same are employed.' The administration of the several provinces had their unity in the person of the king, whose duties with regard to them were transacted through one of the secretaries of state; but the Board of Trade was the organ of inquiries and the centre of colonial information. Every law of a provincial legislature, except in some of the charter governments, if it escaped the veto of the royal governor, might be arrested by the unfavorable opinion of the law officer of the crown, or by the adverse report of the Board of Trade. Its rejection could come only from the king in council. … The Board of Trade was hardly constituted before it was summoned to plan unity in the military efforts of the provinces; and Locke with his associates despaired, on beholding them 'crumbled into little governments, disunited in interests, in an ill posture and much worse disposition to afford assistance to each other for the future.' The Board, in 1697, 'after considering with their utmost care,' could only recommend the appointment of 'a captain-general of all the forces and all the militia of all the provinces on the continent of North America, with power to levy and command them for their defence, under such limitations and instructions as to his majesty should seem best.' … With excellent sagacity—for true humanity perfects the judgment—William Penn matured a plan of a permanent union, by a national representation of the American States. On the 8th day of February 1697, he delivered his project for an annual 'congress,' as he termed it, of two delegates from each province. … But the ministry adopted neither the military dictatorship of Locke and his associates, nor the peaceful congress of William Penn."

_G. Bancroft, History of the United States (Author's last revision), part 3, chapter 4 (volume 2)._

The following is the Plan of Union drafted by Penn: "A Briefe and Plaine Scheam how the English Colonists in the North parts of America, viz.: Boston, Connecticut, Road Island, New York, New Jerseys, Pensilvania, Maryland, Virginia, and Carolina may be made more usefull to the Crowne, and one another's peace and safty with an universall concurrence. 1st. That the severall Colonies before mentioned do meet once a year, and oftener if need be, during the war, and at least once in two years in times of peace by their stated and appointed Deputies, to debate and resolve of such measures as are most adviseable for their better understanding, and the public tranquility and safety. {3173} 2d. That in order to it two persons well qualified for sence, sobriety and substance be appointed by each Province, as their Representatives or Deputies, which in the whole make the Congress to consist of twenty persons. 3d. That the King's Commissioner for that purpose specially appointed shall have the chaire and preside in the said Congresse. 4th. That they shall meet as near as conveniently may be to the most centrall Colony for use of the Deputies. 5th. Since that may in all probability, be New York both because it is near the Center of the Colonies and for that it is a Frontier and in the King's nomination, the Governor of that Colony may therefore also be the King's High Commissioner during the Session after the manner of Scotland. 6th. That their business shall be to hear and adjust all matters of Complaint or difference between Province and Province. As, 1st, where persons quit their own Province and goe to another, that they may avoid their just debts, tho they be able to pay them, 2nd, where offenders fly Justice, or Justice cannot well be had upon such offenders in the Provinces that entertaine them, 3dly, to prevent or cure injuries in point of Commerce, 4th, to consider of ways and means to support the union and safety of these Provinces against the public enemies. In which Congresse the Quotas of men and charges will be much easier, and more equally sett, then it is possible for any establishment made here to do; for the Provinces, knowing their own condition and one another's, can debate that matter with more freedome and satisfaction and better adjust and ballance their affairs in all respects for their common safty. 7ly. That in times of war the King's High Commissioner shall be generall or chief Commander of the severall Quotas upon service against a common enemy as he shall be advised, for the good and benefit of the whole."

_H. W. Preston, Documents illustrative of American History, page 146._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1696-1749. Growing despotism of the English mercantile policy. Systematic suppression of colonial manufactures.

"By the erection, in 1696, of a new Standing Council, or Board of Trade, under the denomination of 'The Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plantations,' the interests of British commerce and the affairs of Colonial trade and government were confided to that body, which thenceforward became the repository of all official intelligence upon those subjects, and the medium of communication with the several governors and assemblies of the Colonies. Yearly reports of the state of the Provinces were required from the governors, in answer to queries addressed to them by the Board. An Act of Parliament of the same year still further restricted commercial intercourse, by limiting trade between England and her Colonies to English, Irish and Colonial built vessels, and by prohibiting Colonial produce from going to the ports of Ireland or Scotland. … The feeble attempts of the Colonists to make a portion of their own clothing from their abundant materials had not been unnoticed in England. Three years after—the Board of Trade having received complaints from English merchants and manufacturers, that the wool and woolen manufactures of Ireland and the North American plantations began to be exported to foreign markets formerly supplied by England—an Act passed the British Parliament, … dictated by that sleepless vigilance which guarded the staple manufacture of England. It prohibited the exportation of any wool or woolen manufacture from Ireland, except to certain ports in England; but, by way of compensation, virtually surrendered to Ireland the linen manufacture, then little regarded in comparison with the woolen interests. In reference to the Colonies, it was enacted that 'After the first day of December, 1699, no wool, woolfels, yarn, cloth, or woolen manufactures of the English plantations in America shall be shipped in any of the said English plantations, or otherwise loaden, in order to be transported thence to any place whatsoever, under the penalty of forfeiting ship and cargo, and £500 for each offence.' … A letter from New England to the Board of Trade [in 1715] … reiterates the necessity of employing the New England people in producing naval stores, to turn them from manufactures. … The discouragement of American manufactures, from this time, became the settled and avowed policy of the government, and, three years later, the Bill prohibiting the erection of forges and iron mills was introduced, and declared that the erecting of Manufactories in the Colonies 'tends to lessen their dependence upon Great Britain.' … The company of Feltmakers, in London, petitioned Parliament, in February, 1731, to prohibit the exportation of hats from the American Colonies, representing that foreign markets were almost altogether supplied from thence, and not a few sent to Great Britain. The petition was referred to a special committee, who reported that, in New York and New England, beaver hats were manufactured to the number, it was estimated, of 10,000 yearly. … The exports were to the Southern plantations, the West Indies, and Ireland. In consequence of this evidence, and that furnished by the Board of Trade in the same session, an act was passed (5 George II. c. 22) that 'no hats or felts, dyed or undyed, finished or unfinished, shall be put on board any vessel in any place within any of the British plantations; nor be laden upon any horse or other carriage to the intent to be exported from thence to any other plantation, or to any other place whatever, upon forfeiture thereof, and the offender shall likewise pay £500 for every such offence.' … This severe and stringent law continued in force in the Colonies until the Revolution. It aimed at the prostration of one of the oldest and, on account of the abundance and cheapness of beavers and other furs, one of the most profitable branches of industry."

_J. L. Bishop, History of American Manufactures, volume 1, chapter 14._

In 1749 an act of Parliament was passed "to encourage the importation of pig and bar iron from his majesty's colonies in America, and to prevent the erection of any mill or other engine for slitting or rolling of iron, or any plateing forge to work with a tilt hammer, or any furnace for making steel in any of the said colonies." "Pig iron was allowed to be imported free to all parts of the kingdom, so as to secure cheap bar iron. But bar iron could not be imported at any port but London, and carried no further than ten miles from that city. This clause was intended to aid the owners of woods. In order to protect the nail trade, all slitting-mills in the colonies were ordered to be destroyed."

_J. B. Pearse, Concise History of the Iron Manufacture of the American Colonies, page 121._

ALSO IN: _W. B. Weeden, Economic and Social History of New England, volume 2._

G. L. Beer, Commercial Policy of England toward the Colonies (Col. Col. Studies, volume 3).

See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763 and 1764.

{3174}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:A. D. 1704-1729. The first colonial newspapers.

See PRINTING AND PRESS: A. D. 1704-1729.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1748-1754. First collisions with the French in the Ohio Valley.

"As the year 1750 approached, there came upon the colonies two changes, destined to lead to a new political life. In the first place, the colonies at last began to overrun the mountain barrier which had hemmed them in on the west, and thus to invite another and more desperate struggle with the French. The first settlement made west of the mountains was on a branch of the Kanawha (1748); in the same season several adventurous Virginians hunted and made land-claims in Kentucky and Tennessee. Before the close of the following year (1749) there had been formed the Ohio Company, composed of wealthy Virginians, among whom were two brothers of Washington. King George granted them 500,000 acres, on which they were to plant 100 families and build and maintain a fort. The first attempt to explore the region of the Ohio brought the English and the French traders into conflict; and troops were not long in following, on both sides.

See OHIO VALLEY: A. D. 1748-1754.

At the same time the home government was awaking to the fact that the colonies were not under strict control. In 1750 the Administration began to consider means of stopping unlawful trade."

_R. G. Thwaites, The Colonies, 1492-1750 (Epochs of American History), chapter 14, section 130._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1749-1755. Unsettled boundary disputes of England and France. Preludes of the last French War.

See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755; CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753; 1755; and OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1754.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1750-1753. The eve of the great French war. Attitude of the colonies.

"The quarrel in which the French and English now engaged was exclusively a colonial one. The possession and defence of the Americans had already cost, over and over again, a larger sum than the whole produce of their trade would have produced. The English had the mortification of observing that the colonists claimed an the security of Englishmen against attack, and repudiated their obligation to take a share of the burdens which their defence occasioned. Were they attacked by the French,—they were Englishmen, and had a right to the ægis which that name throws over all subjects of the crown; were they called upon for a subscription in aid of the war,—they were men who would not submit to be taxed without their own consent; were they taken at their word, and requested through their own assemblies to tax themselves,—they sometimes refused, and sometimes doled out a minute supply, taking care to mix up with their money bill some infringement on the royal prerogative, which rendered it impossible, except under severe exigency of the public service, for the governor to accept the terms offered. … The action of the colonies at this crisis was in accordance with their invariable policy. As soon as they perceived that the French meditated a war of aggression in America, a chorus of complaint and apprehension came at once from the colonists. Shirley, Governor of Massachusetts, and Clinton, Governor of New York, had convened an assembly at Albany during the last year of the last war, to concert measures for uniting an the colonies for common defence; Massachusetts and the other New England States were, of course, anxious that the union should be carried out. They were the barrier between the Canadas and the southern colonies, and if any attack was made they must bear the brunt of it. … The Congress of Albany, and especially the Legislature of Massachusetts, advocated the erection of a line of detached forts which might be so arranged as to overawe the French frontier, and defend the New England colonies from attack. … It was all in vain; every colony, with the exception of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and South Carolina, refused to contribute one farthing towards the expense. … Even in 1753, when the French were actually on the Ohio, and Washington had brought back certain intelligence of their intentions and views, the Virginians refused supplies to Dinwiddie because they declared themselves 'easy on account of the French.' When at last the French had actually established themselves in fortified posts at Niagara, at Le Bœuf, and at Venango, when Contrecœur had driven a colonial officer out of a post which he held on the forks of the Monongahela, when Fort du Quesne had arisen on the ruins of an English stockade, they could no longer close their eyes to the danger which was actually within the boundaries of their State. They granted £10,000 of their currency; but Dinwiddie wrote home that the bill was so clogged with encroachments on the prerogative, that he would not have given his assent had not the public service rendered the supply imperatively necessary."

_Viscount Bury, Exodus of the Western Nations, volume 2, chapter 7._