The Project Gutenberg eBook, Narrative and Critical History of America, Vol. VI (of 8), by Various, Edited by Justin Winsor

NARRATIVE AND CRITICAL

HISTORY OF AMERICA

EDITED

By JUSTIN WINSOR

LIBRARIAN OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY
CORRESPONDING SECRETARY MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL SOCIETY

VOL. VI

BOSTON AND NEW YORK
HOUGHTON, MIFFLIN AND COMPANY

The Riverside Press, Cambridge

Copyright, 1887,
By HOUGHTON, MIFFLIN AND COMPANY.

All rights reserved.

The Riverside Press, Cambridge, Mass., U. S. A.
Electrotyped and Printed by H. O. Houghton & Company.

CONTENTS AND ILLUSTRATIONS.

[The cut on the title shows the obverse of the Washington medal, struck to commemorate the siege of Boston.]

NARRATIVE AND CRITICAL

HISTORY OF AMERICA.

CHAPTER I.

THE REVOLUTION IMPENDING.

BY MELLEN CHAMBERLAIN,

Librarian Boston Public Library.

THE American Revolution was no unrelated event, but formed a part of the history of the British race on both continents, and was not without influence on the history of mankind. As an event in British history, it wrought with other forces in effecting that change in the Constitution of the mother country which transferred the prerogatives of the crown to the Parliament, and led to the more beneficent interpretation of its provisions in the light of natural rights. As an event in American history, it marks the period, recognized by the great powers of Europe, when a people, essentially free by birth and by the circumstances of their situation, became entitled, because justified by valor and endurance, to take their place among independent nations. Finally, as an event common to the history of both nations, it stands midway between the Great Rebellion and the Revolution of 1688, on the one hand, and the Reform Bill of 1832 and the extension of suffrage in 1884, on the other, and belongs to a race which had adopted the principles of the Reformation and of the Petition of Right.

The American Revolution was not a quarrel between two peoples,—the British people and the American people,—but, like all those events which mark the progress of the British race, it was a strife between two parties, the conservatives in both countries as one party, and the liberals in both countries as the other party; and some of its fiercest battles were fought in the British Parliament. Nor did it proceed in one country alone, but in both countries at the same time, with nearly equal step, and was essentially the same in each, so that at the close of the French War, if all the people of Great Britain had been transported to America and put in control of American affairs, and all the people of America had been transported to Great Britain and put in control of British affairs, the American Revolution and the contemporaneous British Revolution—for there was a contemporaneous British Revolution—might have gone on just the same, and with the same final results. But the British Revolution was to regain liberty; the American Revolution was to preserve liberty. Both peoples had a common history in the events which led to the Great Rebellion; but in the reaction which followed the Restoration, that part of the British race which awaited the conflict in the old home passed again under the power of the prerogative, and, after the accession of William III., came under the domination of the great Whig families. The British Revolution, therefore, was to recover what had been lost. But those who emigrated to the colonies left behind them institutions which were monarchical, in church and state, and set up institutions which were democratic. And it was to preserve, not to acquire, these democratic institutions that the liberal party carried the country through a long and costly war.[1]

The American Revolution, in its earlier stages at least, was not a contest between opposing governments or nationalities, but between two different political and economic systems, to each of which able and honest men then adhered, and now adhere. The motives and conduct of each party, therefore, ought to be stated with exact impartiality. It was not only inevitable, but wise, and on the whole wisely conducted in accordance with the traditions and methods of political action to which our British race had been accustomed. It was also honestly and fairly opposed by those who neither accepted revolutionary principles, nor recognized the validity of the reasons assigned for their application to the existing state of affairs.

Readers of American history from the Restoration of Charles II., in 1660, to the Revolution find frequent reference to the King's Prerogatives, Navigation Laws, Acts of Trade, and in later years to Writs of Assistance, as subjects of complaint between Great Britain and her colonies; and as these were among the immediate causes of the war, they require explanation. When the Earl of Hillsborough (April 22, 1768) required the House of Representatives of Massachusetts, through Governor Bernard (June 21st), in his majesty's name, to rescind the resolution which had given birth to their Circular Letter of February 11, 1768, the order was a claim of right by the king to control the legislative action of that province; and the refusal of the House was regarded by the prerogative party both in Great Britain and in the colonies as in derogation of the king's constitutional power.

What was the foundation of this alleged authority of the king over the colonies? By the public law of all civilized nations in the fifteenth century, the property in unoccupied lands belonged to the crown of the country by which they were discovered;[2] and if, as was generally the case, these lands were inhabited by savages, still the fee was in the crown, subject only to such use as might be made of them by wandering tribes. Such is the law to-day. This title to the English colonies was not in the people of England nor in the state, but in the crown, and descended with it. The crown alone could sell or give away these lands. The crown could make laws for the inhabitants, and repeal them; could appoint their rulers, and remove them. Parliament could do neither. The political relations of the colonists were to the crown, not to the government of England; nor were they in any respect subject to parliamentary legislation.[3] They were not citizens within the realm, nor, except in a qualified sense, of the empire, but subjects of the crown, having only such rights as it granted to them in their charters; and even these charters the crown claimed, and exercised the right to amend or revoke. James I. amended that of Virginia in 1624, and Charles II. revoked that of Massachusetts in 1684. They were regarded merely as charters of incorporated land companies, and, as such, subject to revocation by the king who granted them; and when these companies had developed into municipal governments, they were considered as still subject to alteration or repeal by the sovereign power,[4] although in both cases rights of property were saved to the owners. Strange as this doctrine may seem, it is now substantial law in England and in America.

To all these rights, privileges, and disabilities the emigrants agreed when they purchased lands from the crown; and the rights and duties, whether of the crown or of its subjects, descended to their respective successors. With such rights, though not in all cases with such views in respect to them, the colonists came to America; and such rights, and no more, their children possessed, under the British Constitution, at the time of the American Revolution, in the days of George III.

These claims of the crown every colony resisted as incompatible with its essential rights, and yet they were legal and constitutional prerogatives, admitted by the greatest judges of England, and most necessarily have been admitted in the colonies not only by Hutchinson and Oliver, but by James Otis and John Adams, had they sat as judges. It was on this legal and constitutional ground that the prerogative party stood both in England and in America.

But in England from the time of James I., and in America from the coming of Winthrop, there had been an anti-prerogative party; and as the prerogative party in England and the prerogative party in America were one and the same, so the anti-prerogative party in England and the anti-prerogative party in the colonies were one and the same, having similar views, and, though separated by a thousand leagues, working to the same end. On this question came the first political contest of the Revolution; that of parliamentary supremacy came later. The strength of one side was in legal and constitutional principles, as they were then interpreted by judicial tribunals; that of the other lay in the changes which were taking place in the British Constitution,—in short, in revolution. The revolutionary party succeeded in both countries: in America, by war; in England, by more silent influences which have greatly modified, if not destroyed, the prerogative.

Although the prerogative was a cardinal right in the British Constitution, and freely exercised by popular sovereigns like Elizabeth, it began to be questioned under James I., and resisted under Charles I., who lost his life in its defence, as James II. lost his crown.[5] But the progress of this revolution was not steady, nor did it always hold what it had gained. There came periods of reaction, one of which was in the early days of George III. He was strenuous in maintaining his prerogative, and, by the support of the "King's Friends", probably held it with a firmer hand than any of his predecessors since Elizabeth. The contest about the prerogatives encountered this difficulty: that successful resistance in a particular instance settled no principle, but left all other cases untouched.[6] The extension of the navigation acts to the colonies by Parliament, though assented to by King Charles II., was in derogation of his prerogatives; and so in the time of William III. (1696) was the attempt to transfer certain colonial affairs from the Privy Council, which represented the king, to a proposed Council of Commerce, which would have been the creature of Parliament. In consistency with these proceedings, the king's power over the colonies ought to have been transferred to Parliament; and instead of remaining the king's colonies, they ought to have become a part of the empire, and his authority over them no greater than that over the territory within the four seas. But it was otherwise. The colonists remained the king's subjects. He appointed their governors; he frequently set aside their laws, and over them he exercised his royal prerogatives. One capital point, however, had been gained by the revolutionary party on both sides of the water. Successful invasions of the prerogative had at length created what was called the "spirit of the constitution."[7] The loyalists, however, seemed to be firmly entrenched in their constitutional position, nor did the anti-prerogative party avoid a dilemma: how to escape out of the hands of the king without falling into the hands of Parliament. If, as some claimed when they resisted the royal prerogative, they were British subjects, entitled to the same rights and privileges as native-born subjects within the realm, why then should they, more than other subjects, be free from the burdens imposed by the imperial policy? But when, in pursuance of that policy, Parliament undertook to tax the colonies, then they were forced by the logic of the situation to claim that, though subjects of "the best of kings", they owed no more allegiance to Parliament than the Scotch did before the union.[8]

Probably no one more heartily detested the claims of the prerogative than Franklin; and yet the phase which the controversy had assumed compelled him to take high prerogative ground. Such was his position with regard to the Stamp Act, as is seen in the note below.[9] Andros himself could have asked for nothing better, in 1686; and when Franklin was asked what the king could do, should the colonies refuse just requisitions, he had no other answer than this,—that they would not refuse!

Such is the doctrine of the prerogative which gave rise to constant conflicts between the king and the colonists, from 1660 to 1774, and in every colony was among the political causes which led to the Revolution. But it was an English question as well as an American question,—a party question in both countries, and it was finally settled with the same result in each, though by different means. We must look further for the real controversy between the English people and the American people.

Another cause of the Revolution, but one which, in no strict sense, concerned the political relations between the people of Great Britain and the American colonists, was the attempt of the British merchants to monopolize the trade of the colonies, not for the benefit of the British people, but for their own. This also was a party question, on one side of which were arrayed the adherents of the Mercantile or Protective System, and on the other those of the Economic or Free Trade System. The mercantile class endeavored to subordinate colonial interests to the protective system by navigation laws and acts of trade; and the resistance of the colonists to these acts was a claim for free trade which finally involved them in a war with the mother country.

What were those navigation laws and acts of trade which called forth the invective of James Otis when he argued the Writs of Assistance, and revived in the bosom of the octogenarian John Adams the hearty curse he bestowed upon them in his youth; and on what foundation did they rest?[10]

Nations acquire new territories, and maintain and defend them, to promote their own interests, and not the interests of those who inhabit them; still less the interests of other nationalities. This has been the case in all ages and under all forms of government, to which our own age and nation form no exception. By the right of discovery the British crown became possessed of the territory included in the thirteen American colonies, settled mainly by British subjects. Lands were granted to individuals, or companies, with the expectation that they would build up prosperous communities, to contribute by their products and trade to the wealth of the mother country. On these purely selfish considerations she protected them; and when their trade was grown to be considerable and their markets valuable, the British merchants took measures to secure both, instead of sharing them with other nations, or allowing them to follow the interests of the colonists. Such was the policy of Great Britain at the dictation of the mercantile class; and in the maintenance of that policy, in sixty years between 1714 and 1774, she paid out of her Exchequer the enormous sum of £34,697,142 sterling, a sum greater than the estimated value of the whole real and personal property in the colonies.[11]

Between 1660 and 1770 Parliament enacted various laws whose enforcement produced irritation from the beginning, and had no inconsiderable influence in promoting the final rupture. These acts may be classed as,—First, navigation laws, designed to secure the naval and maritime supremacy of Great Britain throughout the world; these were aimed at the Dutch. Second, acts of trade, procured by the mercantile class, to monopolize the trade of the British colonies. Like the corn-laws of a later generation, these formed part of the protective system, and were dictated by class interest. Third, acts for the protection of British manufactures by preventing their growth in the colonies, where their best market was found. Fourth, acts designed to secure the strict execution of the preceding acts by establishing colonial admiralty courts, custom-houses, and boards of customs. Fifth, acts which imposed and regulated duties and port charges in commercial towns. In no sense were these acts for revenue, British or colonial. They brought nothing into the British Exchequer, but drew large sums from it.[12] They were passed solely in the interest of the mercantile and manufacturing classes, whose protection had much to do with bringing on the Revolution, but whose clamors happily prevented efficient measures for its suppression. These demonstrations, which gained them great credit in the colonies, grew out of their fear of losing not only the £4,000,000 due by their colonial debtors, but also their future trade.

Before the Grenville Act of 1764 no measures had been taken to relieve the Exchequer from demands on account of the colonies. The people and the government had suffered the mercantile and manufacturing classes to dictate their colonial policy. Not that the prosperity of these classes did not contribute to the general prosperity of the realm; for, on the contrary, it had made Great Britain the most affluent and powerful country on the globe. But this system did not promote the welfare of all classes alike; and when the time came, as it did after the frightful expenditure in the French War, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was compelled to ask for ready money to pay the interest on the debt and to meet current expenses, neither the merchants nor the manufacturers, who had grown rich by the war, offered on that account to pay larger taxes, but they were quite willing that the British farmer should do so, or that a revenue should be sought from the American colonies.

Some account of these famous laws is essential at this point. There were three statutes embraced under the general term Navigation Laws and Acts of Trade, in which are to be found the principles of the Mercantile System. They were passed in 1660, 1663, and 1672, during the reign of Charles II., and may be found in the Statutes at Large,[13] with the following titles respectively: "An Act for the Encouraging and Increasing of Shipping and Navigation", "An Act for the Encouragement of Trade", and "An Act for the Encouragement of the Greenland and Eastland Trades, and for the Better Securing the Plantation Trade."[14]

The navigation laws will be more readily understood if we attend solely to their effect on the American colonies, and disregard unimportant exceptions and limitations. By the act of 1660, none but English or colonial ships could carry goods to or bring them from the colonies. This excluded all foreigners, and especially the Dutch, who at that time were the principal carriers for Europe. The result was that the colonists lost the advantage of their competition. Far more serious was the provision which restricted them from carrying sugar, tobacco, cotton, wool, indigo, ginger, fustic and all other dyeing wood, the product of any English colony, to any part of the world, except Great Britain, or some other English colony. This affected the English sugar islands of the West Indies and the Southern colonies, which were obliged to send their products to the overstocked English or colonial markets, more than it affected New England, whose great staples, lumber, fish, oil, ashes, and furs, were free to find their best market, provided only they were sent in English or colonial vessels.

British merchants not satisfied with this monopoly procured a more stringent act in 1663, which provided that no commodity, the growth, product, or manufacture of Europe, should be imported into the colonies, except in English-built ships, sailing from English ports. By this act England became the sole market in which the colonists could purchase the products or manufactures of Europe, nor could they send their own ships for them, unless English-built or bought before October 1, 1662. They were obliged to buy in English markets and import in English vessels.[15] This discouraged ship-building for the European trade in a country full of timber, and compelled the payment of charges and profits to English factors dealing in Continental goods for the American market.

By these two acts British merchants had undertaken to monopolize, with certain exceptions, the carrying trade of the colonies and their markets for the sale and the purchase of goods. But avarice was not satisfied. There had grown up a trade, especially profitable to New England, with the Southern colonies which were without shipping. By the act of 1660, foreign and intercolonial trade in certain articles was permitted, with the expectation that it would be limited to necessary local supply. But Boston merchants, shipping to that port tobacco and some other colonial products in excess of the local demand, sent the surplus to Continental Europe, without payment of British or colonial duties, and thus undersold the British trader, who had paid heavy import duties. To suppress this profitable irregularity, it was enacted in 1672 that the enumerated products shipped to other colonies should be first transported to England, and thence to the purchasing colony. The colonial merchants had the option, however, of bringing tobacco, for instance, from Virginia direct to Massachusetts, first paying an export duty equivalent to the English import duty.[16]

These enactments subjected colonial interests to those of British ship-owners and merchants; and as they had been thus duly protected, the manufacturers in turn claimed similar protection by statutes which should prevent the colonists from setting up competing manufactories.[17] How could there have been any difference of opinion among the colonists respecting such statutes? A general answer is, that the colonial system, which regarded the colonies as feeders for the navigation, trade, and manufactures of the parent state, was the accepted doctrine of European statesmen. Pitt was its stanchest advocate, and Burke its rational friend. Adam Smith, who assaulted it in 1776,[18] did not succeed in overthrowing it. Twenty-five years later, Henry Brougham controverted Smith's views.[19] It is not strange, therefore, that it found advocates among the colonists themselves. It was also far from being a one-sided question.

James Otis's arguments on the Writs of Assistance and John Adams's letters to William Tudor, by dwelling on the injurious features of these acts, and passing over all compensating considerations, give an erroneous notion of them. The idea that they originated in a hostile disposition of the British people or merchants towards the colonists is not entitled to a moment's consideration. They formed a commercial policy, not a political policy. The more numerous, wealthy, and prosperous the colonists became, the more useful they were to the British merchants, so long as they could monopolize the trade. That was their object; and where the freedom of colonial trade would not interfere with British trade, it was left free. For example, the most profitable trade of New England was with the French and Spanish West India Islands and the Spanish Main. The short distance favored small vessels and small capitals. The exchange of lumber, grain, cattle, and fish for sugar and molasses, with an occasional voyage to the coast of Africa for slaves, during that traffic,[20] yielded rich returns. This trade was free; and so was that of Asia and Africa, and some ports of Europe, except for certain enumerated articles. It was not only permitted, but with respect to some commodities was encouraged by bounties. Between 1714 and 1774, the colonists, chiefly those of New England, received £1,609,345 sterling on their commodities exported to Great Britain;[21] and through a system of drawbacks, by which the duties on goods imported into England were repaid on their exportation to America, the colonists often bought Continental goods cheaper than could the subjects within the realm. These favors no more indicated good will than the restrictions indicated hostility. Both rested on purely commercial considerations. There were other compensations. The naval supremacy of Great Britain, due chiefly to the navigation laws, protected colonial commerce in whatever seas it was pushed; and the stimulus of monopoly withdrew British capital from other less lucrative enterprises, and directed it to the colonies, where it was freely used by planters in developing lands which otherwise would have been uncultivated for lack of capital.[22] And although certain colonial produce was obliged to find its only European market in England, it had the monopoly of that market.

If it was a hardship to the tobacco growers of Maryland and Virginia to be compelled to send that product to England, they had this advantage, that no Englishman could use any other. He was forbidden by penal statutes to grow his own supply even in his own garden. As to those laws which restrained manufactures in the colonies, it was the opinion of Henry Brougham,[23] who cites Franklin as an authority, that they merely prohibited the colonist from making articles which could have been more cheaply purchased.[24] He could import a hat from England for less than it cost to make one, and he did so. But the best ground for nominal submission to the navigation laws and acts of trade was found in their easy evasion, and the fact that they never were, and never could have been, rigidly enforced. From the first, all attempts to enforce them led to dissatisfaction. Randolph's revenue seizures in the time of Charles II. and James II. had no small influence in overthrowing Andros's government in the revolution of 1689, and so had Charles Paxton's in bringing on the American Revolution.

Before the new policy of enforcing these laws was entered upon, the colonies enjoyed British naval protection; they possessed the monopoly of the British market; they drew bounties from the British Exchequer; they purchased European goods more cheaply than the British people could do; and, stating the facts somewhat broadly, they manufactured whatever they found to be for their advantage, and sent their ships wherever they pleased, notwithstanding the navigation laws and acts of trade. The result was that the colonies, especially barren and frozen New England, engrossed most profitable commerce which England had attempted to monopolize, and increased in wealth beyond all colonial precedent.[25] But these halcyon days were destined to pass under clouds. British merchants had seen from the beginning the amassing of fortunes in the colonies by illicit trade, and the falling off of their own. They had striven to enforce the laws, and Parliament had lent its assistance,—but in vain. Under the first charter of Massachusetts, the collector of customs was the governor, whose annual election depended upon the good will of those who were evading the navigation laws; under the second charter, the governor was appointed by the king, and sworn to enforce those laws. But colonial juries generally checkmated the king's representative. Then followed admiralty courts without juries, which produced indignant protests. The new system was irritating rather than efficient on a long line of coast filled with bays, creeks, and ports not patrolled by revenue cutters. The British merchant was foiled, and anger was the result. The attempt to monopolize the commerce of the colonies was a failure; and so long as the navigation laws were a dead letter the advantages of the situation were with the colonists. They were content.

But the time came at the close of the French War when the mercantile system was subordinated to a revenue system, and the enforcement of the navigation laws and acts of trade, made more stringent by some new ones, became the policy of the government. Its instruments were admiralty courts with enlarged jurisdiction, commissioners of customs, writs of assistance, and an adequate naval force. When that time came, the Revolution was not far off![26]

In 1755, Shirley, then governor of Massachusetts, had persuaded the General Court to attempt by a stamp act to meet the expenses of the French War. This produced an irritation like that which followed in 1765 the act of the British ministry;[27] and to Shirley, as much as to any other man, perhaps, was due the suggestion of those parliamentary measures which led to the Revolution. Long residence in Boston and his profession as a lawyer had made him familiar with the evasions of the navigation laws; and his larger duties as commander-in-chief, in which he found much difficulty in bringing the colonial assemblies into concerted and efficient action, doubtless suggested measures which were adopted by the British ministry. However this may have been, the enforcement of the navigation laws was taken in hand for the first time by the government, and no longer left to depend upon private interests. This unwonted activity was shown as early as 1754. Its most formidable weapon was the Writ of Assistance.

More than four years before the passage of the Stamp Act, James Otis had resisted the granting of these writs before the Superior Court of Massachusetts. John Adams, then a student of law, took notes of Otis's argument, and fifty-six years later wrote: "Then and there was the first scene of the first act of opposition to the arbitrary claims of Great Britain. Then and there the child Independence was born."[28] This was no mere rhetorical phrase.[29] The influence of this controversy in producing the Revolution is not wholly due to the fiery eloquence of Otis, whose words, said John Adams, "breathed into the nation the breath of life", nor to the range of his argument, which called in question the mercantile and political systems of Great Britain, but to their effect upon the commercial interest—then the leading one—of New England; for if the latent powers of these writs were set free, and used by the revenue officers, the commerce of Boston, Salem, and Newport would have been effectually crippled. Authorized in England, they were extended to the colonies by an act of William III.[30] The officers of customs, however, instead of applying to the courts for them, relied upon the implied powers of their commissions, and forcibly entered warehouses for contraband goods. The people grew uneasy, and some stood upon their rights against the officers, whose activity was stimulated by documents like that given in the note below.[31]

Governor Shirley issued these writs, though the power to do so was solely in the court.[32] But they would have held a less important place in the history of the Revolution had it not been for the concurrence of several circumstances. All writs become invalid on the demise of the crown and six months thereafter. George II. died October 25, 1760, and the news reached Boston December 27th. The government had already resolved upon a more vigorous enforcement of the revenue laws. The king had instructed Bernard, the newly appointed governor of Massachusetts, to "be aiding and assisting to the collectors and other officers of our admiralty and customs in putting in execution" the acts of trade. Pitt also directed the colonial governors to prevent trade with the enemy and a commerce which was "in open contempt of the authority of the mother country, as well as to the most manifest prejudice of the manufactures and trade of Great Britain."[33] Seizures of uncustomed goods were frequent. The third part of the forfeiture of molasses which belonged to the province amounted before 1761 to nearly five hundred pounds in money. Bernard arrived in August, 1760. Chief Justice Sewall, who had expressed doubts as to the legality of writs of assistance, died September 11th; and Hutchinson, his successor, took his seat January 27, 1761. As the outstanding writs had become invalid, their renewal became necessary. But when Charles Paxton, the surveyor at Boston, appeared for that purpose in the Superior Court, February term, 1761, he was confronted by a petition signed by sixty inhabitants of the province, chiefly merchants of Boston, who desired to be heard in opposition, in person and by their counsel, James Otis and Oxenbridge Thacher. Otis, Advocate-General for the crown, had resigned his office to avoid supporting the writ.[34] Gridley, the Attorney-General, appeared in his stead. No complete report of the arguments has been preserved.[35] Gridley, who treated the question as purely one of law, to be determined by statutes and precedents, said of Otis's argument, that "quoting history is not speaking like a lawyer;" and as to the arbitrary nature of the writ which allowed the entry of private houses in search of uncustomed goods, he reminded him that by a province law a collector of taxes, without execution, judgment, or trial, could arrest and throw a delinquent taxpayer into prison. "What! shall my property be wrested from me? Shall my liberty be destroyed by a collector for a debt unadjudged, without the common indulgence and lenity of the law? So it is established; and the necessity of having public taxes effectually and speedily collected is of infinitely greater moment to the whole than the liberty of any individual."

Otis's argument is well known. Carried to its logical results, it was a plea for commercial and political independence of the colonies, and was fully vindicated by the result of the conflict it precipitated. But as a legal argument it is less conclusive.[36]

The majority of the court, however, were with Otis; and had judgment been given at the time, the decision would have been in his favor. But Hutchinson counselled delay until the practice in England could be learned; and as it appeared that such writs were issued, of course, from the Exchequer, on the 18th of November, the court, after re-argument, pronounced them to be legal. Thenceforth they were freely used. Otis's argument, without doubt, secured his election to the General Court in May, in which his influence was second to that of no other in bringing on the struggle which ended in independence. Nor was its effect limited to Massachusetts. It reached the remotest colonies, and, as John Adams said, led to "the revolution in the principles, views, opinions, and feelings of the American people."[37]

Revolution, however, had been long impending. The treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle in October, 1748, which put an end to the long war between England and France, opened with the declaration that "Europe sees the day which the Divine Providence had pointed out for the reëstablishment of its repose. A general peace succeeds to a long and bloody war." But neither the peace, nor the treaty by which it was secured, was satisfactory to one of the belligerents; for England had failed to secure the commercial advantages for which the war had been undertaken, and the terms of the treaty, requiring her to give hostages for the restoration of Cape Breton to France, excited the indignation of the British people. Nor were other causes for the renewal of the war wanting. The aggressive policy of France in respect to the English possessions in Acadia and along the Ohio and the Mississippi, notwithstanding the treaty, soon produced its legitimate results. The Seven Years' War followed. In Asia and in the West Indies, the maritime powers measured their strength by sea. At the same time in North America, England and her colonies on the one side, and France on the other, contended for the empire of the continent. Led by Clive, Wolfe, Amherst, and Rodney, and inspired by the genius of Pitt, the forces of England everywhere prevailed, and she took the first place among the nations.

On the 10th of February, 1763, at Paris, was signed the treaty that recognized the extinction of the French empire in North America. This treaty marks an epoch in the history of America, as well as in that of England and of France. To the latter it was a period of humiliation, not only in the loss of colonies upon which, for nearly a century, she had expended vast sums without any adequate return, but also in the frustration of her purpose of gaining sole possession of the continent.

By England it was regarded as the close of a contest to maintain her power on the same continent, and make it subservient to her commercial and manufacturing interests, which had lasted for nearly a hundred years. Yet there was a well-founded apprehension, expressed at the time, that her colonies, relieved from the fear of French aggressions, would throw off the authority of the mother country.[38] What was the fear of the mother country, on the other hand, was the hope and expectation, more or less remote, of the colonies. For the experience gained in the French wars was of great value to them in the revolutionary struggle. Officers had become familiar with the direction of large bodies of troops, and with the means of their transport and supply; and soldiers had learned that efficiency depended upon discipline. Provincial assemblies also had been taught to look for safety in strategic operations remote from their own territory. But at no time before the assembling of the congress of 1754 had the colonies been called to consider such a union of all as would give unity to military operations, and secure the semblance, at least, of a general government. The union proposed at that time would have involved some loss of independence, without securing any efficient means of enforcing the recommendations of the congress, and so the colonies hesitated, and finally laid it aside. But there can be no doubt that the consideration given to it by the several colonies led them more readily to come together for concerted action in the congress of 1765.

The year 1763 is usually regarded as the beginning of the American Revolution, because in that year the English ministry determined to raise a revenue from the colonies. This led to a contest, which, like most civil wars, was long and embittered. It engendered feelings which have not yet passed away,—feelings which interfere with a calm and dispassionate review of the motives of the parties concerned, and of the circumstances which attended their controversy. It was a war between Britons and the descendants of Britons, who, with a common ancestry, laws, and manners, retained their essential race characteristics in spite of the lapse of time or the change of place: everywhere and always lovers of liberty, but in power haughty, insolent, and aggressive on the weak, and in subjection turbulent and impatient of restraint; proud of ancestry, partial to old customs and precedents, but quick to resist laws which impede the course of equity, and never permitting forms to prevent the accomplishment of substantial justice. Such was the parent and such was the child: and in the light of these facts we are to read the history of the Revolution. It exhibited the race in no new light, nor did the contest involve any new principle. Its sentiments were expressed in the old idiomatic language,—petition, remonstrance, riot, war.

For more than a hundred years the colonies had been regarded as appendages to the crown rather than as an integral part of the empire; and when Parliament, at the instigation of the mercantile classes and in derogation of royal prerogative, began at the close of the seventeenth century to assume control over them, and, a few years later, to vote large sums from the imperial treasury for their protection, and, in some cases, for the support of their civil governments, that body looked for reimbursement to the profits which would inure to British merchants from the monopoly of colonial trade and navigation, and flow indirectly into the national Exchequer. But with the close of the French War a new policy seemed to become necessary. The debt had swelled to frightful proportions. The British people were groaning under the weight of the annual interest and their current expenses. Every source of revenue seemed to be drained, and the ministry turned their eyes for relief to the colonies; not, indeed, for relief from the present debt, but from the necessity of adding to it the whole expense of defending the colonies. This was the fatal mistake which precipitated the Revolution. On this subject, however, there seems to be some misapprehension. The popular idea was, and still is, that the colonists were to be taxed to pay the interest on the national debt and the current expenses of the government, and that all moneys raised in the colonies were to pass into the British Exchequer (thus draining them of their specie), there to remain subject to the king's warrant. Such, however, was not the scheme of the ministry. Not a farthing was to leave America. All sums collected were to be deposited in the colonial treasuries, and only certificates thereof were to be sent to the Exchequer. These were to be kept apart from the general funds, and, after defraying the charges of the administration of justice and the support of the civil government within all or any of the colonies, they were to be subject to parliamentary appropriation for their defence, protection, and security, and for no other purpose.[39]

The alleged necessity was this: The government had broken the French power in Canada, and shaken its hold upon the lakes and great rivers of the West. This achievement, so glorious to the empire, and therefore to the colonies as parts of it, and more immediately for their benefit, had added one hundred and forty millions to the national debt, under which the subjects within the realm were staggering. While some colonies had been tardy or negligent in furnishing their quotas of men and money for the war, yet it was acknowledged that as a whole they had borne their fair proportion of the expense, and that some had exceeded their share. So far all was clear. Although Canada had been conquered mainly for the colonies, still the conquest added to the security and glory of the empire, and the accounts for past expenditures were squared. But what of the future? As these possessions had been acquired, a stable government was needed for them, both for the safety of the colonies and for the honor of England. They were still inhabited by Indians under French influence, and they might become dangerous unless controlled by military power. Choiseul, the great French minister, informed by the reports of his secret agent, foresaw the complications likely to arise in the government of the colonies, and was not without hope of retrieving by diplomacy the losses which had occurred from war. Forts and garrisons were necessary. Although the Northern colonies were comparatively secure, the Carolinas and Georgia were menaced by powerful and hostile tribes. The government must regard the colonies as a unit, of which all parts were entitled to imperial protection. To this view of the case there could be no sound objection. Twenty thousand troops,—Pitt thought more would be needed,—besides civil officers to regulate such affairs as did not fall within colonial jurisdictions, were to be sent to the colonies. At whose expense ought these military and civil forces to be maintained? The British farmer objected to pay for the protection of his untaxed colonial competitor in the British market. If the colonies were to continue to be governed in the interest of the mercantile classes, upon them might reasonably fall the expense of their protection. But the acquisition of vast territories required a new policy, and it was deemed equitable that they should be defended at the expense of the empire of which the colonies were a part. They had claimed and received imperial protection, and they ought to bear a proportional part of the cost, which might be collected under the imperial authority with the same certainty and promptness as were taxes on other subjects of the king. This was the ministerial view of the matter as I gather it from the debates in Parliament.

This claim of the ministry was met by the liberal party on both sides of the water in two ways. It was asserted that the late war, and in fact all the wars which affected the colonies, had been waged in the interest of commerce and for the aggrandizement of the realm of which they were no part, and that the newly acquired territories were of doubtful advantage to colonies as yet sparsely populated. But if these considerations were not conclusive, still the colonists ought not to be taxed, because the imperial government by monopolizing their trade received far more than the colonial share of the expense attending their defence. The liberals also asserted that there was no disposition on the part of the colonists to seek exemption from a reasonable share of these imperial expenses; but as in the past they had voluntarily contributed their part, and in some cases even more, so they would in the future; and that in the future, as in the past, these contributions ought to be voluntary, and the frequency and amount to be determined by the provincial assemblies. Moreover, as the colonists neither had, nor could have, any equitable or efficient representation in the imperial Parliament, they could not consent to have their property taken from them by representatives not chosen by themselves.

The ministry and their adherents replied that the foregoing arguments, even if sound, were such as no party charged with the administration of affairs, and obliged to raise a certain amount of money from a people clamorous for relief from present taxes, could accept; that no reliance could be placed on voluntary contributions; that the necessities of government required that money should be raised by some system which would act with regularity and certainty, and reach the unwilling as well as the willing; that even in the last war, when the existence of the English colonies was threatened by a foe moving with celerity by reason of its unity, the movements of English troops had been delayed by the backwardness of the colonies in furnishing their quotas; and now that the pressure of the French power was removed from New England, that section would leave the Middle and Southern colonies to their own resources, especially when it was remembered how remiss those colonies had been in assisting the north and east when attacked.[40] It was also answered that so far from the monopoly of the colonial trade being a set-off to the expenses incurred by the mother country in defending the colonies, the fact was notorious that by the evasion of the navigation laws and acts of trade the colonists had escaped the restrictions intended by those laws, and at the same time had received bounties and drawbacks from the British Exchequer which enabled them to undersell the British merchants in the markets of Europe.

Here was a deadlock. The arguments on both sides seemed conclusive. No practical solution of the difficulty was proposed at the time, nor has been since. Both parties were firm in their convictions. Neither could yield without the surrender of essential rights. A conflict was unavoidable unless one party would relinquish the authority claimed by the imperial government; unavoidable unless the colonies, essentially free by growth, development, and distance, would yield to pretensions incompatible with their rights as British subjects. The new policy contemplated after the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1748 was carried into effect after the treaty of Paris in 1763. But nothing could have been more unfortunate than the time at which Great Britain inaugurated this policy, and no ministers than those by whom it was to be carried out. On essential political questions which divided the colonists and the mother country Great Britain herself was in the midst of a revolution. The new policy which was inaugurated fell into the hands of those opposed to it. Whig ministers were charged with the execution of an illiberal and reactionary scheme. Consequently, the administration of American affairs was weak and vacillating. The result was inevitable. Had Pitt, with his large views and great administrative abilities, been at the head of affairs for ten years after the peace, the Revolution might have been postponed. On the other hand, had the mercantile system during the same period been administered with the unity of purpose and thoroughness of measures which characterized Carleton's administration in Canada, and had it been enforced by the military genius of Clive, the rebellion might have been temporarily suppressed.

In the journals and statutes of the provincial assemblies we find from the beginning a similarity of causes leading to the final rupture. There are the same quarrels about the royal prerogative; the same repugnance to the navigation laws and acts of trade; the same unwillingness to make permanent provision for the support of the royal governors and judges, and the same restiveness under interference with their internal affairs; but owing either to differences in their original constitutions or of interests, commercial and agricultural, or because of varied nationality and religion, or by reason of all these causes combined, discontent was less general in the Southern than in the Northern colonies. Of the Northern colonies, in Massachusetts we find the causes which brought on the war operative and continuous from the beginning. Party strife between friends and opponents of prerogative existed in other colonies, but in Massachusetts the conflict broke out with special virulence between the adherents of Otis and those of Hutchinson. It was also intensified by the pecuniary interests of a large part of the inhabitants of Boston, which were affected by the enforcement of the navigation laws through the aid of writs of assistance. It was for this enforcement that Hutchinson was held responsible when the mob sacked his house, and were ready to do violence to his person.

The province had received from the British Exchequer more than £60,000 sterling for the war expenses of 1759, and nearly £43,000 for those of 1761. Money was plentiful, and more was expected from the same source. There was a lull in the angry storm of local politics when news of the preliminaries of peace reached Boston in January, 1763. With this came assurances that Parliament would reimburse the colonies for expenses incurred, beyond their proportion, in the last year of the war; and the two Houses of the General Court agreed upon an address expressing gratitude to the king for protection against the French power, and full of loyalty and duty. But quiet was not of long continuance. The close of the war dried up several sources of profitable trade or adventure,[41]—some legal, such as furnishing supplies to the king's forces, and some illicit. Then came orders from the Board of Trade to enforce the navigation laws, heretofore chiefly evaded, but now to be enforced with the aid of writs of assistance. At the same time plans were entertained by the cabinet for making changes in the constitutions of the colonies; and what was hardly less opportune, the English bishops incessantly pressed upon the ministry the adoption of archbishop Secker's scheme of introducing an episcopal hierarchy into America, which would have carried with it some of the worst features of the prerogative.[42] The history of the period from the treaty of 1763 to the meeting of the Continental Congress at Philadelphia in 1774 is a narrative of an attempt by the British ministry to enforce certain measures upon unwilling colonists, and of the resistance of the colonists to those measures. Who were the ministers, what were their measures, and how did the colonists resist them?

Pitt had carried the country through a long and glorious war; but he was not satisfied with the results. The cost had been heavy, and as a guaranty against future expense he meditated the substantial annihilation of the French power. He knew that France and Spain had entered into the Family Compact with a view to a war with England. War with Spain was only a question of time, and he would have anticipated its declaration by seizing the immense treasure belonging to that power, then on the sea. This would have replenished the British Exchequer, and perhaps have deferred a resort to American taxation. Pitt urged this measure at a cabinet meeting, September 18, 1761. His advice was not followed, and he resigned October 5. But war was declared against Spain, January 1, 1762, and carried on with brilliant results, though the golden opportunity of securing the Spanish treasure was lost. The preliminaries of peace were signed at Fontainebleau, November 3, 1763.

GEORGE III.

(From Andrews's Hist. of the War, London, 1785, vol. i. It follows a painting by Reynolds. Cf. cut in Murray's History, vol. i.—Ed.)

This virtually ended Pitt's connection with the ministry and with the conduct of American affairs as a leader; for although he was again at the head of the ministry from August 2, 1766, to October, 1768, his direction was merely nominal. It was during his administration that the Townshend Acts were passed, and the Mutiny Act extended to the colonies,—facts which show divided counsels and the lack of uniform purpose. Pitt seldom appeared in the ministry except to oppose his own government. Whenever his great powers were most needed by sore-pressed colleagues to devise some practicable policy for replenishing the Exchequer, or for governing the colonies, he was in the country wrestling with the gout. This was a serious loss to the mother country, but it hastened the independence of America.

LORD NORTH.

From Doyle's Official Baronage, ii. 89. It follows Dance's picture. Cf. J. C. Smith's Brit. Mez. Portraits, i. p. 135; Gay's Pop. Hist. U. S., iii. 365; Walpole's Last Journals.—Ed.

The terms of peace with France were settled by Bute and Bedford, against the views of Pitt; but on April 16, 1763, Bute retired from the ministry, before the new policy for the government of the colonies had been fully developed. He was succeeded by George Grenville, who continued at the head of the government until July, 1765. Grenville was able, well informed, and thoroughly honest. His knowledge of financial matters was extensive and accurate, and, as Chancellor of the Exchequer during the preceding administration, he had become familiar with the difficulties of providing for the expenses of government. No question could have been more perplexing at this time. A certain amount of revenue was required to meet the interest on the public debt, and to defray current expenses. Economic theories of commercial policy would not serve as an item in the budget. The minister needed the money, and the Stamp Act was framed and passed. He also encountered other difficulties when public sentiment had become inflamed by the question of General Warrants. His relations to the king were unfriendly. Pitt threw his influence into the scale of the opposition, and Grenville's administration was a failure.

The Rockingham ministry began July 13, 1765, and ended August 2, 1766. The colonists themselves could hardly have chosen one more to their mind. It was weak and vacillating. It repealed the Stamp Act, and passed the Declaratory Bill. To Dowdswell, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Massachusetts House voted their thanks. Then came the Chatham-Grafton ministry, which was in power until December 31, 1769. This was nominally Pitt's ministry; but his elevation to the peerage impaired his influence with the people, and after nine months he retired from public affairs by reason of ill health. Men of such opposite views and character as Shelburne, Hillsborough, Charles Townshend, and Lord North were of this ministry.

Lord North was premier from February 10, 1770, to September 6, 1780. Long after he wished to retire he continued to hold power at the personal solicitation, and even by the command, of the king. He was able, faithful, and patriotic; but his heart was not in the work of subduing the colonies, nor could he pilot the ship of state through dangerous seas.

Such were the ministers at one of the most critical periods in English history. No first-class man is to be found among them save Pitt, and his real attitude was that of opposition. He raised the storm, but when his hand ought to have been on the helm he was prostrate in the cabin.

Nor were the governors of Massachusetts, during a period when affairs needed a firm hand, although worthy gentlemen, altogether such as a far-seeing ministry would have chosen to carry out the new policy. Shirley was the only governor of Massachusetts who possessed the favor of the people; and yet he believed in the king's prerogative, and valued himself highly as its representative. He endeavored to suppress illicit trade and to enforce the navigation laws; and from his conferences with Franklin, it is certain that he contemplated some radical changes in the constitutions of the colonies.[43] But he got more money from the people for public uses than any previous governor, and even persuaded them to pass a provincial stamp act.[44] The secret of Shirley's influence may have been that he was less eager to secure his own salary than some of his predecessors had shown themselves to be, and that he had displayed unequalled activity in conducting the French war, which engaged the attention of the people. Pownall, who succeeded Shirley, belonged to the popular party. He gave no particular attention to the navigation laws, and was on the opposite side from Hutchinson, who was lieutenant-governor during the latter part of his term, which closed in 1760.

After Pownall came Bernard, and with him the beginning of the Revolution. Bernard was not without ability, accomplishments, and good intentions; but he was a Tory. More firmly even than Shirley, he believed in the royal prerogatives, and in some modification of the provincial charters to bring their action into harmony with the imperial system. During his administration, and in some cases at his suggestion, the ministry entered upon that series of measures which lost the colonies to Great Britain: the enforcement of the navigation laws; the use of writs of assistance; Grenville's revenue acts in 1764; the Stamp Act of 1765; the Townshend duties of 1767; and the arrival of military forces in 1768.

The purposes contemplated by these successive administrations were not unreasonable, nor were the measures by which they sought to accomplish them unwise in themselves. The general policy was the same as that afterwards pursued by the colonies when they had become a great empire,—homogeneity, equal contributions to expenses, a preference for their own shipping, and protection to their own industries.

The difficulty arose from a misconception of the relations of the colonies to the mother country. They were not a part of the realm, and could neither equally share its privileges nor justly bear its burdens. The attempt to bring them within imperial legislation failed, and could only fail. They were colonies; and the chief benefit the parent state could legitimately derive from them was the trade which would flow naturally to Great Britain by reason of the political connection, and would increase with the prosperity of the colonies.

Early in 1763 the Bute ministry, of which George Grenville and Charles Townshend were members, entered upon the new policy. To enforce the navigation laws, armed cutters cruised about the British coast and along the American shores; their officers, for the first time, and much to their disgust, being required to act as revenue officers. To give unity to their efforts, an admiral was stationed on the coast. To adjudicate upon seizures of contraband goods, and other offences against the revenue, a vice-admiralty court, with enlarged jurisdiction, and sitting without juries, was set up.[45] Royal governors, hitherto chiefly occupied with domestic administration, were now obliged to watch the commerce of an empire. It was seen long before this time that the successful administration of the new system would require some modification of the provincial charters; but the difficulties were so serious that the matter was deferred.

Such was the new order of things. The student who reflects upon the complete and radical change effected or threatened by these new measures, so much at variance with the habits and customary rights of the colonists, breaking up without notice not only illicit but legitimate trade, and sweeping away their commercial prosperity, is no longer at loss to account for the outburst of wrath which followed the Stamp Act, a year later.[46] To avert these hostile proceedings, the colonists memorialized the king and Parliament. They employed resident agents to act in their behalf. They availed themselves of party divisions and animosities in England. They alarmed British merchants by non-importation and self-denying agreements. When these measures seemed likely to prove ineffectual, they aroused public sentiment through the press, by public gatherings and legislative resolutions, by committees of correspondence between towns and colonies, and finally by continental congresses. They did not scruple to avail themselves of popular violence, nor, in the last extremity, of armed resistance to British authority.

So far as trade and commerce were concerned, it was a struggle between British and colonial merchants. The colonial merchants desired freedom of commerce; the British merchant desired its monopoly. But this does not state the case precisely; for the colonial merchants were desirous of retaining what they possessed rather than of acquiring something new. By the navigation laws the British merchant had a legal monopoly of certain specified trades; but by evading these laws, the colonial merchants had gained a large part of this trade for themselves. One party, standing on legal rights, wished to recover this lost trade; the other party, basing their claim on natural equity and long enjoyment, wished to retain it. This was an old question, a hundred years old; but it had acquired new interest since the government, with the aid of writs of assistance, had undertaken to enforce the navigation laws and acts of trade. Such was the first issue between the parties. The second was this, and it was new: As has been said, Great Britain had never undertaken to raise a revenue from the colonies, though she had often contemplated doing so, and especially during the French war just closed. At the close of the war it was estimated that £300,000 would be required to man the forts about to be vacated by the French, and to maintain twenty regiments to hold the Indians in check, who were still under French influence and might become dangerous, as happened in Pontiac's time; and to give efficiency to civil administration by granting to governors, judges, and some other officers fixed and regular salaries, instead of having them depend on irregular and fluctuating grants of colonial assemblies. One third of these expenses—£100,000—the ministry proposed to raise by laying duties on importations, reserving a direct tax by stamps for fuller consideration.

The colonists met this proposition by denying both the necessity and the right of raising a revenue,—at first distinguishing between external and internal taxes, and finally objecting to all taxes raised by a Parliament in which they neither were nor practically could be represented. These issues were complicated with several others of long standing, but which may be left out of the account here.

The popular idea has been that the Revolution began with the Stamp Act. But it seems strange that prosperous colonists, in whose behalf the British people had expended £60,000,000 sterling, should refuse to pay £100,000, one third of the sum deemed necessary for their future defence, and that months before they were called upon to raise the first penny they should fall into a paroxysm of rage, from one end of the continent to the other, and commit disgraceful acts of violence upon property and against persons of the most estimable character.

This view, however, overlooks several facts. If we disregard the chronic quarrels in all the colonies, growing out of the exercise of the royal prerogatives, Virginia and Massachusetts especially had been aroused on the abstract questions concerning the relations of the colonies to Great Britain, and in them the earliest demonstrations of hostility to the Stamp Act were manifested. In the famous "Parsons Case" argued by Patrick Henry in December, 1763, in words which rang through Virginia because they affected every man in that colony, he drew the prerogative into question, not only in regard to the ecclesiastical supremacy of the Anglican hierarchy, but also on the right of the king to negative the "Two-penny Act" of the colonial assembly. In Massachusetts, James Otis, in 1761, arguing the writs of assistance, assumed the natural rights of the colonists to absolute independence. But the promulgation of none of these theories of abstract rights accounts for the general outbreak in 1765. Its most potent influence was the enforcement of the navigation acts in the great commercial centres, and the ruin threatening New England through the breaking up of her trade with the French West Indies and the Spanish Main[47] by the modification of the Sugar Act in 1764. The staples of New England were fish, cattle, and lumber. The better quality of fish found a market in Europe, but this trade was subject to competition. For the poorer quality the chief market was in the French West Indies, where by the French law it could be exchanged only for molasses. This was shipped to New England, and used not only in its raw state, but distilled into rum, which, besides supplying home consumption, was to some extent exported to Africa in exchange for slaves. This trade and commerce with the Spanish Main was the chief source of the wealth of New England. But in 1733, to protect the sugar industry of the English West India islands, a duty amounting to prohibition was laid on all sugar and molasses imported into the American colonies from the French islands. So long as this act was not enforced, it did little harm; but if enforced, it would not only ruin the trade in rum and lumber, but injure the fisheries also, for the English islands were limited in population and had no liking for poor fish. The French, besides being more numerous, were less particular as to their diet; but if they could not sell molasses, they would not buy fish. It was proposed to modify and enforce this act. Minot[48] says: "The business of the fishery, which, it was alleged, would be broken up by the act, was at this time estimated in Massachusetts at £164,000 sterling per annum; the vessels employed in it, which would be nearly useless, at £100,000; the provisions used in it, the casks for packing fish, and other articles, at £22,700 and upwards; to all which there was to be added the loss of the advantage of sending lumber, horses, provisions, and other commodities to the foreign plantations as cargoes, the vessels employed to carry fish to Spain and Portugal, the dismissing of 5000 seamen from their employment, the effects of the annihilation of the fishery upon the trade of the province and of the mother country in general, and its accumulative evils by increasing the rival fisheries of France. This was forcibly urged as it respected the means of remittances to England for goods imported into the province, which had been made in specie to the amount of £150,000 sterling, beside £90,000 in the treasurer's bills for the reimbursement money, within the last eighteen months. The sources for obtaining this money were through foreign countries by the means of the fishery, and would be cut off with the trade to their plantations." This was what the enforcement of the molasses act meant. Neither the duties laid in 1764 nor the collection of the taxes anticipated from the Stamp Act of 1765 would have produced a tithe of the evil that would have followed. John Adams,[49] confirming the statement of Minot, says: "The strongest apprehensions arose from the publication of the orders for the strict execution of the molasses act, which is said to have caused a greater alarm in the country than the taking of Fort William Henry did in the year 1757."[50] Rumors of the intention of the ministry had been rife for some time, and in January, 1764, the Massachusetts Assembly wrote to their agent in London that the officers of the customs, in pursuance of orders from the Lords of the Treasury, had lately given public notice that the act, in all its parts, would be carried into execution, and that the consequences would be ruinous to the trade of the province, hurtful to all the colonies, and greatly prejudicial to the mother country.[51]

Besides the rumors of the modification of the Sugar Act came others respecting new duties, and a Stamp Act. In its alarm, the General Court determined to send Hutchinson to London as special agent, to prevent, if possible, the intended legislation. He was in favor of allowing the colonies the freest trade, but acknowledged the supremacy of Parliament.[52] No man knew the colonies better, or was better able to present their just claims, than Hutchinson. He had much at stake in the colony in which he was born, and to which he had rendered many and honorable services. No man loved her better, or was more worthy of honor from her. He was chosen by both Houses; but Governor Bernard suggested doubts as to the expediency of his going to England without the special leave of the king; and subsequently the project was laid aside in consequence of some rising suspicions as to his political sentiments.[53]

Ruin threatened New England. A Stamp Act was not needed to set her aflame; and the other colonies soon had reasons of their own for joining her in the general opposition. All parties were agreed as to the danger, but they differed as to the remedy.

The reports which reached America in the winter of 1764, respecting the intentions of the ministry to raise a revenue from the colonies, were verified in the following spring. The substance of Grenville's resolutions (with the exception of that respecting stamps, which was laid aside for the present) became a law April 6, 1764. Bancroft has summarized this act as "a bill modifying and perpetuating the act of 1733, with some changes to the disadvantage of the colonies; an extension of the navigation acts, making England the storehouse of Asiatic as well as of European supplies; a diminution of drawbacks on foreign articles exported to America; imposts in America, especially on wines; a revenue duty instead of a prohibitory duty on foreign molasses; an increased duty on sugar; various regulations to restrain English manufactures, as well as to enforce more diligently acts of trade; a prohibition of all trade between America and St. Pierre and Miquelon."[54]

Organized opposition to the ministerial measures began in Boston, and perhaps, at that time, could have begun nowhere else. For not only were the interests of that town, in the fisheries, trade, and navigation, the most considerable in the colonies, but there, as nowhere else in the same degree, for more than a century, had been operative causes of dissatisfaction connected with the navigation acts, the exercise of the royal prerogatives, and ecclesiastical affairs; and in no other section had Otis's declaration of the general principles of liberty found such ready acceptance.

The Grenville Act of April, 1764, was to take effect September 30. News of its passage had scarcely arrived in Boston before the citizens in town meeting, May 24, voted instructions[55] to their representatives in the General Court, which had been presented by Samuel Adams. They were directed to endeavor to prevent proceedings designed to curtail their trade, and to impose new taxes,—"for if their trade might be taxed, why not their lands?"—and to obtain from the General Assembly all needed advice and instruction, so that their agent in London might effectually "demonstrate for them all those rights and privileges which justly belonged to them either by charter or birth." Since the other colonies were equally interested, their representatives were also to endeavor to obtain coöperation in that direction.

Thus at the very outset the patriots sought counsel and union with the sister colonies. These instructions were scattered far and wide. The General Court came in on the 30th. June 1, letters from the London agent were referred to a committee of which Otis was one. On the 8th, The Rights of the British Colonies was read,[56] and again on the 12th, when it was referred to the committee of which Otis was a member.[57] On the 13th a letter to Mauduit, their agent, was reported, which must have made his ears tingle,[58] for it was a scathing rebuke for neglect and inefficiency in not preventing the injurious legislation, and for making unwarranted concessions in behalf of the colony.[59] Otis went over the whole question of colonial rights and grievances, but by implication he admitted that representation in Parliament would prove satisfactory.[60] The same committee was directed to correspond with the other governments, requesting coöperation in their endeavors to effect the repeal of the Sugar Act and to prevent the Stamp Act. The letter of the committee, drawn by Otis, together with his Rights of the Colonies, was sent to the agent in London, to make the best use of them in his power. As this action taken by the House of Representatives, which did not seek the concurrence of the Council as usual, was not regarded as judicious by the moderate party, the governor was induced to call the General Court together on the 12th of October. In the mean time the temper of the merchants had become soured by revenue seizures to the amount of £3,000.[61]

The General Court (November 3), in answer to the governor's speech, elaborately discussed the act of Parliament, and the same day agreed upon a petition to the House of Commons, setting forth the injurious nature of the new measures and of the navigation laws, as well as deprecating their enforcement. This was accompanied by a letter to their agent, showing historically the services and expenses of the colony in various wars, and their willingness to share in the defence of the empire.[62] These papers—the petition and the letter—were drawn up by Hutchinson; but though able, candid, and convincing, their tone did not satisfy the more ardent patriots, especially when they were contrasted with Otis's fiery letter to the agent in June, or when compared with similar documents emanating from some other colonies,—that of New York in particular: for the discontent of the colonies, to which the Boston instructions doubtless contributed, was general, and manifested itself in petitions, remonstrances, and correspondence.[63]

The events of 1764 left no doubt as to the manner in which the people would receive the Stamp Act of 1765; nor, although with grievances of their own, were they unobservant of what was going on in England. "Wilkes and Liberty" was a familiar cry in Boston as well as in London, and the names Whig and Tory became terms of reproach.[64]

Notwithstanding the memorials and petitions of the colonial assemblies, and the remonstrances of their agents in London, George Grenville persevered in his determination to bring in a stamp bill. Since its first suggestion, he had listened patiently to the colony agents and other friends of America; but they proposed nothing better, or so good, if the colonies were to be taxed at all. They admitted that the stamp tax would be inexpensive in its collection, and general in its effect upon different classes of people. Indeed, so little did the agents understand the real feeling in America that they—and Franklin was among them—were quite ready, when the time came, to solicit positions as stamp-distributors for their friends, and Richard Henry Lee even asked a place for himself.[65] February 6, 1765, Grenville introduced his resolutions for a Stamp Act, and put forward his plan in a carefully prepared speech. Colonel Barré's opposition called forth the well-known question of Charles Townshend, and the still more famous rejoinder of the former. Pitt was away and ill. The debate occupied but one session of the Commons, and the ministers were directed to bring in a bill, which was done on the 13th. Numerous petitions against it, presented by colonial agents, were rejected under the rule which allowed no petition against a money bill. The bill passed both Houses, and on March 22 received the royal assent. But in America there was no apathy. If there had been a calm, it presaged the coming storm. The passage of the bill was known in America before the end of May, and from Virginia came the first legislative response. She spoke through the voice of her great orator. Of Patrick Henry's six resolutions, though supported by a powerful speech, only four, however, were carried, May 30, by a small majority, in a House in which the Established Church and the old aristocracy were very powerful.[66]

The General Court of Massachusetts did not meet until May 27, but set to work so promptly that the House, June 6, under the lead of James Otis, who had recovered from a fit of vacillation, voted that it was highly expedient that there should be a meeting, as soon as might be, of committees from the several colonial assemblies, "to consult together on the present circumstances of the colonies, and the difficulties to which they are and must be reduced by operation of the late acts of Parliament for levying duties and taxes on the colonies." It was agreed to send them a circular letter to that effect, recommending a congress, in the city of New York, the first Tuesday of October. This measure, which led to the Stamp Act Congress, was pushed through with an unanimous vote of the House (June 6), though probably not with the equally concordant opinion of the members; and the circular, which was dated June 8, was immediately dispatched.[67] James Otis, Oliver Partridge, and Timothy Ruggles—the last two having little heart in the matter—were chosen delegates. The response to the Massachusetts circular was neither unanimous, nor, from some of the assemblies, enthusiastic.[68] At this stage of the Revolution, in high offices and in provincial assemblies were friends of the royal government able to make their influence felt in opposition to popular measures. Nine of the colonies, however, were represented in the congress, and from others came expressions of good-will. In the mean time public sentiment was rapidly shaping itself into violent opposition to the act. In Boston the Sons of Liberty were on the alert. When the name of Andrew Oliver appeared among the stamp-distributors he was hanged in effigy from the Liberty Tree on the night of the 13th of August; and the next night the frame of a building going up on his land, and supposed to be intended as a stamp-office, was broken in pieces and used to consume the effigy before his own door.[69] On the 26th of the same month the records of the hated Vice-Admiralty Court were burned by the mob, the house of the comptroller of the customs sacked, and that of Chief Justice Hutchinson forcibly entered and left in ruins. His plate and money were carried off, and his books and valuable manuscripts were thrown into the streets. Nor did he or his family escape without difficulty. The militia were not called out to maintain order, for many of the privates were in the mob. Men of standing secretly connived at proceedings which they afterwards insincerely condemned. Though these violent outbreaks came earlier and were carried to greater excess in Massachusetts than in any other province, similar demonstrations followed in Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, and Pennsylvania.[70]

When the Stamp Act Congress met in New York, October 7, 1765, that city was the headquarters of the British forces in America, under the command of General Gage. Lieutenant-Governor Colden, then filling the executive chair, was in favor of the act, and resolved to execute it; but the Sons of Liberty expressed different sentiments. The Congress contained men some of whom became celebrated. Timothy Ruggles was chosen speaker, but Otis was the leading spirit. In full accord with him were the Livingstons of New York, Dickinson of Pennsylvania, McKean and Rodney of Delaware, Tilghman of Maryland, and Rutledge and the elder Lynch of South Carolina. New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia failed to send delegates, but not for lack of interest in the cause. The Congress prepared a Declaration of Rights and Grievances, An Address to the King, a Memorial to the House of Lords, and a Petition to the House of Commons, and adjourned on October 25th. For a clear, accurate, and calm statement of the position of the colonies these papers were never surpassed; nor, until the appearance of the Declaration of Independence, was any advance made from the ground taken in them.[71]

It is not to be inferred from the results of their proceedings that there were no differences of opinion among the delegates. Several of them afterwards took sides with the king; and there was doubtless diversity of sentiment on the Stamp Act, as well as in Parliament, which reassembled January 14, 1766, under a different ministry from that which had carried the measure less than a year before. For in a few months after the passage of the act, George III., chiefly on personal grounds, had changed his legal advisers. After negotiations with Pitt had failed, a new ministry, with the Marquis of Rockingham as chief, and the Duke of Grafton and General Conway as Secretaries of State, was installed, July 13, 1765. It was a Whig ministry. With it, though not of it, was associated Edmund Burke, private secretary of Rockingham, and not long after, through his influence, a member of the House of Commons. This change of the ministry was regarded with favor by the colonists, and doubtless encouraged their resistance to the Stamp Act. The action of the colonists produced a great effect on the new ministry, and alarmed the British merchants trading with America. Their trade had been threatened by non-importation agreements made to take effect January 1, 1766, and their debts were imperilled by the determination of the colonists to withhold the amount of them as pledges for good conduct. The general confusion likely to arise in the administration of justice, and the transactions of the custom-house, from want of stamps, brought the ministry to their wits' end. Parliament assembled December 17th. But notwithstanding an effort by Grenville to bring on a general consideration of American affairs, the subject was postponed until after the holidays.

ROCKINGHAM.

From Doyle's Official Baronage, iii. 170.—Ed.

In the mean time some embarrassment was anticipated from the want of stamps, November 1,[72] when the act was to go into operation. Governor Bernard (September 25) had called the attention of the House of Representatives to the courts, which guarded the property and persons of the inhabitants, and to the custom-houses, upon which depended legal trade and navigation. The House, in its answer, October 23, had not shared his excellency's apprehensions, but was not then quite ready to say, as it said three months later (January 17, 1766), "The courts of justice must be open,—open immediately,—and the law, the great rule of right in every county of the province, executed."[73] But this attitude had not been taken without intermediate steps. In December the town of Boston presented a petition to the governor and council for the reopening of the courts, which was supported by John Adams, who then first publicly identified himself with the patriot cause, of which he became one of the most efficient advocates. After some delay and inconvenience, the courts and custom-houses throughout the colonies, early in the spring, took the risk of proceeding without stamped papers, trusting to find their justification in necessity.

Parliament reassembled January 14, 1766. The king's speech opened with a reference to "affairs in America, and Mr. Secretary Conway laid before the House of Commons important letters and papers on the same subject." On the 17th a petition of the merchants of London trading with North America against the Stamp Act was presented. Then (January 28) followed the examination of Franklin, in relation to the Stamp Act, before the House, in committee.[74] With this mass of information before them, American affairs received an exhaustive discussion. The Stamp Act was repealed, and the royal assent was given March 18th. The debates on the Declaratory Act were no less full. It was a memorable session,—memorable for the first speech of Burke; for those great speeches of Pitt which placed him at the head of modern orators, for Grenville's masterly defence of his colonial policy, and for Franklin's examination. It was also memorable for the constitutional discussions of Mansfield and Camden in the House of Lords. If the reader finds it difficult to resist Mansfield's judicial interpretation of the British Constitution adverse to the American claim, he recognizes in the great principles then enunciated the force which popularized that Constitution and marked a forward movement of the British race.

The Declaratory Act—that the king, with the advice of Parliament, had full power to make laws binding America in all cases whatsoever—was passed. This gave Pitt some trouble, considering his emphatic declaration in that regard; but the liberal party in the colonies soon met it with the counter-affirmation that Parliament possessed no authority whatever in America except by consent of the provincial assemblies. If the colonists had not forced the British government from its position, they had advanced from their own. The repeal, however, caused great rejoicing on both sides of the Atlantic. British merchants expected no further trouble from non-importation agreements, and hoped that the colonists would now pay their debts,—amounting to £4,000,000. But there were misgivings on both sides. The ardent patriots were outspoken in condemning the Declaratory Act, which Franklin had thought would give no trouble. But the act of 1764, laying duties, remained; and the enforcement of the navigation laws—their real grievance—lost none of its vigor. Governor Bernard was under instructions to enforce the laws against illicit trade; and in addition to these official obligations, his share in the forfeitures of condemned goods laid his motives open to suspicion. Nothing could have been more unfortunate for his administration. It was also alleged that merchants were encouraged in schemes to defraud the revenue; and that when their ships and cargoes were compromised, they were seized and condemned. At a time when conciliatory measures were needed to reassure the colonists, the harshest were followed. Nevertheless, the repeal weakened the prerogative party on both sides of the water, and encouraged the liberal party by a knowledge of its power.

Fac-simile of an original in the library of the Mass. Hist. Society.—Ed.

Governor Bernard opened the General Court, May 29, 1766, with congratulations on the repeal of the Stamp Act. If he had stopped there he would have acted wisely; but he alluded to the "fury of the people" in their treatment of Hutchinson, and to some personal matters, which called forth a reply from the House couched in terms showing no abatement of animosity. This was increased on the receipt of another message from the governor (June 3), enclosing the Act of Repeal and the Declaratory Act, and at the same time informing them that he had been directed by Secretary Conway to recommend "that full and ample compensation be made to the late sufferers by the madness of the people", agreeably to the votes of the House of Commons. He also complained of their exclusion of the principal crown officers from the Council by non-election.[75] The General Court promptly availed themselves of this last topic for reply, instead of committing themselves on the matter of compensation. They did not fail, however, to vote a politic address of thanks to the king for assenting to the repeal of the Stamp Act, and to offer their grateful acknowledgments to Pitt and those members of the two Houses who had advocated it.[76] But the subject of compensation could not be passed by. The governor urged prompt compliance with the recommendation of Conway. The House, however, professing the greatest abhorrence of the madness and barbarity of the rioters, and promising their endeavors "to bring the perpetrators of so horrid a fact to exemplary justice, and, if it be in their power, to a pecuniary restitution of all damages", regarded compensation by the province as not an act of justice, but rather of generosity, and wished to consult their constituents. Therefore they referred the matter to the next session.[77]

In December the two Houses passed a bill granting compensation to those who had suffered losses in the Stamp Act riots, but, on the suggestion of Joseph Hawley, accompanied it with a general pardon, indemnity and oblivion to the offenders. Why they should have been so solicitous for the safety of those who had committed crimes, condemned in June in the severest terms, does not appear; and this invasion of the royal prerogative of pardon did not fail to attract the attention of the Parliament.[78]

In the late contest with Parliament the colonists had gained a victory, but it was neither final nor precisely on the right ground. As a matter of practical politics, they were ready to accept Pitt's distinction between commercial regulations and internal taxes. They took the repeal of the Stamp Act with thanks, but not as a finality. They participated in the lively demonstrations of joy which followed that event on both sides of the Atlantic; but thoughtful observers on both sides perceived that one of the most powerful agencies in effecting the repeal was the mercantile class, which had no intention of relinquishing its grasp upon colonial commerce. Nor was the popular feeling without guidance. It was the good fortune of the colonists, all through the long contest, to have statesmen like John Adams, Jay, and Dickinson, who could supplement the passionate appeals of Otis and some of his associates with the calm reasons of political philosophy. None rendered more valuable services in this respect than John Adams. In a series of papers which appeared in the Boston Gazette in the summer and fall of 1765,—when the minds of the people were inflamed by the Stamp Act,—and were afterwards republished in London as A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law, he combated the ecclesiastical and feudal principles which lay at the bottom of the monarchical and Anglican system.

The substantial grievance of the commercial colonies was not the Stamp Act, which had not taken a farthing from their pockets. It was the enforcement of trade regulations, which impaired the value of the fisheries and dried up a principal source of revenue. A renewal of the contest, and for the first time on its true grounds, was not long postponed. The Rockingham ministry gave way, and Pitt, gazetted Earl of Chatham July 30, 1766, took the helm of state August 2d, and was the nominal head of the government until October, 1768. Among those associated with him were the Duke of Grafton, Charles Townshend, Conway, and the Earl of Shelburne. It was Pitt's misfortune—and his country's—during these stormy times, that when he was most needed he was disabled by sickness. Historians have speculated as to the probable pacification of America had Pitt—not Chatham—guided affairs.[79] Pitt's was a great name in America as well as in Europe. By his genius the French power in America had been destroyed. This the colonists knew. He had been generous in reimbursing their expenses in the late war. This, and his efforts in effecting the repeal of the Stamp Act, they remembered with gratitude. Whatever man could do in restoring things to their old order Pitt could have done. He might even have relinquished something of his claims for parliamentary supremacy in respect to trade and general legislation; but it is doubtful whether, even at that early period, he could have eradicated the ideas of independence which had taken possession of the colonists, or have arrested the movement which resulted in the independence of America and the overthrow of the royal prerogative in England.

JOHN ADAMS. (Amsterdam print.)

The Amsterdam edition, 1782, of Geschiedenis van het Geschil tusschen Groot-Britannie en Amerika ... door zijne Excellentie, den Heere John Adams.

There is a likeness of John Adams as a young man engraved in his Life and Works, vol. ii. He says of himself at the time of the famous scene when Otis was making his plea against the Writs of Assistance, and he was taking notes of it, that the artist depicting it would have to represent the young reporter as "looking like a short, thick Archbishop of Canterbury" (Works, x. 245). There was a print published in London in 1783 showing a head in a circle, which is reproduced in the Mag. of Amer. Hist., xi. 93. Copley painted him once, in 1783, in court dress, and the painting now hangs in Memorial Hall, Cambridge. The head of this full-length picture was engraved for Stockdale's edition of Adams's Defence of the Constitutions, published in 1794; and the painting was never engraved to show the entire figure till it appeared in vol. v. of the Works (A. T. Perkins's Copley, p. 27). Cf. the head in Bartlett Woodward's United States.

Stuart first painted him in 1812, and this picture belongs to his descendants, and is engraved in the Works, vol. i. There are copies of this picture by Gilbert Stuart Newton and B. Otis, both of which have been engraved. The Newton copy is in the Mass. Hist. Society (Catal. of Cabinet, no. 47; Proc., 1862, p. 3). The Otis copy has been engraved by J. B. Longacre (Sanderson's Signers, vol. viii.). Stuart again painted Adams in 1825, the year before he died, representing him as sitting at one end of a sofa. It is engraved on steel in the Works, vol. x., and on wood in the Mem. Hist. Boston, iii. 192. (Cf. Mason's Stuart, p. 125.) Another Stuart is owned by Mr. T. Jefferson Coolidge, of Boston.

A portrait by Col. John Trumbull also hangs in Memorial Hall, Cambridge; and Adams's likeness is also in Independence Hall. (Cf. Irving's Washington, quarto ed., vol. v.) A cabinet full-length by Winstanley, painted while Adams was at the Hague (1782), is in the Boston Museum (Johnston's Orig. Portraits of Washington, p. 93).

Among the contemporary popular engravings, mention may be made of that by Norman in the Boston Magazine, Feb., 1784; one in the European Magazine (vol. iv. 83).

Stuart also painted a portrait of the wife of John Adams, which is engraved in the Works, vol. ix. A picture of her by Blythe, at the age of twenty-one, accompanies the Familiar Letters.

Views of the Adams homestead in Quincy, Mass., are given in the Works (vol. i. p. 598); in Appleton's Journal (xii. 385); in Mrs. Lamb's Homes of America. An india-ink sketch, showing a distant view of Boston beyond the house, is in the halls of the Bostonian Society.—Ed.

The Massachusetts Assembly was in no amiable frame of mind. When there was no cause for quarrel, they made one. Bernard had probably been advised to preserve a prudent silence respecting political affairs. At the opening of the session, January 28, 1767, in a message of less than ten printed lines, he recommended "the support of the authority of the government, the maintenance of the honor of the province, and the promotion of the welfare of the people", as the chief objects for their consultation. This called forth a captious reply, and a complaint because Lieutenant-Governor Hutchinson, who had not been reëlected to the Council, appeared in the council-chamber at the opening of the session, at the request of the governor and as matter of courtesy. The House found in his presence, if voluntary, "a new and additional instance of ambition and lust of power."

AUTOGRAPH OF JOHN ADAMS, 1815.

Part of a letter in Smith and Watson's Hist. and Lit. Curios., 1st ser., pl. vii.—Ed.

In the spring of 1767, Parliament had occasion to inquire into some colonial legislation. In April, 1765, the Mutiny Act had been extended to the colonies. This was intended in part to provide for military offences not within the jurisdiction of civil courts, and in part to require the colonies in America, as in England in like cases, to provide for quartering the king's troops. The New York Assembly made only partial provision. When Sir Henry Moore, the governor, communicated to them the letter of Earl Shelburne, to the effect that the king expected obedience to the act, the Assembly resolved not to comply, and called in question the authority of Parliament. Parliament then took the matter in hand, and suspended their legislative authority until compliance.[80] This action brought them to terms. It made considerable stir throughout the colonies, and was regarded as a serious invasion of their rights.

The arrival of several companies of royal artillery at Boston, in the fall of 1766, and the quartering of them at the expense of the province, by order of the governor and council, gave the General Court occasion, at their session in January, 1767, to express their opinion about unauthorized expenditures of the public money, and to enquire if more troops were expected.[81] The governor explained the quartering of the troops, and said he had no expectation, except from common rumor, of the arrival of additional forces. But his statement failed to allay apprehensions of a design on the part of the ministry to support their measures by military power. Added to other causes of alarm in 1767 was a report that Anglican bishops were about to be supported in the colonies, at the expense and under the patronage of the British government.

In 1767 strife was renewed on what are known as the Townshend Acts. Charles Townshend was Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Chatham-Grafton ministry. He had reluctantly voted for the repeal of the Stamp Act, and still held to his opinions that the colonists should pay some share of the civil and military expenses arising from their defence and government; and if, to secure promptness and uniformity of action, some modification of their charters should be found necessary, then that ought to follow. In conformity with these views, he had given some pledges in respect to deriving a revenue from America, and, during Chatham's retirement, had brought forward his scheme of taxation in certain resolutions of the Committee of Ways and Means, April 16, 1767,[82] the substance of which was enacted June 29th, to go into effect November 20th. There were two acts known as the Townshend Acts: the first[83] providing for the more effectual execution of the laws of trade, and for the appointment of commissioners for that purpose; and the second[84] granting duties on glass, paper, colors, and tea, and legalizing writs of assistance. The revenue thus raised was to be applied to "defraying the charge of the administration of justice, and the support of the civil government in such provinces where it should be found necessary; and towards further defraying the expenses of defending, protecting, and securing the said dominions." Before the act went into operation Charles Townshend died (September 4, 1767), and Chatham's powers continued to be enfeebled by disease. It was the misfortune of Great Britain that both these able men should have been withdrawn from the public service during this critical period, and that the policy of each had to be represented by inferior men. Chatham's conciliatory methods had no fair trial; and Townshend's coercive measures were pressed neither with unity of purpose nor vigor of execution.

Between the passage of Townshend's Acts in the summer of 1767 and their taking effect in November, the colonists had ample time to study and organize opposition, stimulated by the arrival (November 5, 1767) of Burch and Hulton, two of the five commissioners of customs who had been sent over to enforce them. At first the people expressed their resentment, in which, as usual, those of Boston took the lead, by renewing their non-importation agreements. In the mean time efforts had been made to introduce domestic manufactures.[85] These practical measures in Massachusetts were supplemented by one of the ablest discussions of colonial rights which had yet appeared. In the early winter of 1767-8 John Dickinson published in a Philadelphia newspaper a series of essays entitled The Farmer's Letters, which soon attracted notice both in America and England.

From An impartial History of the War in America (Boston, 1781), vol. i. p. 325, engraved by J. Norman, a Boston engraver.

In 1772, when Adams was forty-nine, John Hancock commissioned Copley to paint pictures of Adams and himself, to commemorate their political union, and the two portraits hung for many years in the Hancock mansion on Beacon Street in Boston, before they were given to the town. That of Adams is a three-quarters length, and shows him standing at a table, holding a paper, in the attitude of speaking (Perkins's Copley, p. 28). As engraved by H. B. Hall, it is given in Wells's Life of Samuel Adams, vol. i.; and it is also engraved in Delaplaine's Repository (1815); in Bancroft, vol. vii. (orig. ed.), and in other places, as well as, on wood, in the Mem. Hist. of Boston (iii. 35). After having hung for some years in Faneuil Hall, it has now been transferred to the Art Museum. It was engraved—the bust only—by Paul Revere, for the Royal American Mag., April, 1774, and a reproduction of this is given by Wells (vol. ii.). A copy of the original was made by J. Mitchell, and from this a mezzotint by Samuel Okey was issued at Newport in 1775.

Another and smaller picture, also by Copley (Perkins, p. 29), and said to have been painted in 1770, hangs in Memorial Hall, Cambridge, and has been engraved in the Mem. Hist. of Boston, ii. 438. Cf. Sanderson's Signers, vol. ix.

The Copley type of head characterizes the engraving by J. Norman, given above from the Boston edition of a current history. The London edition (1780) of the same book has a picture which has little resemblance to the Copley type, as will be seen by the fac-simile likewise herewith given, and marked "London, 1780."

There was a picture made late in life by John Johnson, which has been destroyed; but from a mezzotint of it, made in 1797 by Graham, H. B. Hall reëngraved it for Wells's third volume, and on wood in Higginson's Larger History, p. 255.

The statue by Miss Whitney follows the Copley head. One copy of this is in the Capitol at Washington, and another in Dock Square, in Boston.—Ed.

Their influence among all classes was widespread and profound.

SAMUEL ADAMS, LONDON, 1780.

The year 1768 was one of the most momentous of the Revolutionary period. Hitherto the colonists, in defence of their property, had denied the supremacy of Parliament as based on usurpation; but now, in defence of their privileges, they denied the prerogative of the king, the source of their political existence. This grew out of the Massachusetts Circular Letter. The General Court came together December 30, 1767. John Hancock, James Otis, and Joseph Hawley were prominent members, but though James Otis was still active, Samuel Adams was the master spirit. Never was his practical sagacity more serviceable to the cause; never did his genius for politics shine brighter. His fruitful pen is apparent in the remarkable series of state papers called forth by the Townshend Acts, comprising the letter of the House to their London agent (January 12, 1768), the Petition to the king (January 20), and the Circular Letter to the assemblies of the several colonies (February 11).[86] If the Townshend Acts were to be successfully resisted, union of sentiment and action among all the colonies was essential. This was the object of the circular letter. It was an arraignment of Parliament and the ministry in respect to the revenue acts, and the system by which the British government proposed to make civil officers, including the judges, the instruments for its enforcement; and it solicited an interchange of opinions on these subjects.[87] Governor Bernard watched the proceedings of the House with the deepest interest, nor was he long in doubt as to the nature of the circular letter, for two days after its adoption a copy of it was proffered, in case he desired it.[88] This letter was preceded (besides the documents already mentioned) by letters to the Marquis of Rockingham, General Conway, Lord Camden, and to the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury. The details of these papers cannot be given here. They present the whole case of the colonies, their rights, their grievances, their remonstrances, and their petitions. They proceeded mainly from the pen of Samuel Adams, who, when he had shaken himself clear from profuse professions of loyalty and disclaimers of "the most distant thoughts of independence", rose to the annunciation of the loftiest principles of statesmanship, in the declaration that "the supreme legislative, in any free country, derives its power from the constitution, by the fundamental rules of which it is bounded and circumscribed;"—"that it is the glory of the British Constitution that it hath its foundation in the law of God and nature;"—"that the necessity of rights and property is the great end of government;"—"that the colonists are natural-born subjects by the spirit of the law of nature and nations;" and "that the laws of God and nature were not made for politicians to alter." Nor does he confine himself to the enunciation of abstract principles, but states the rights of the colonists of Massachusetts on historical grounds, and shows the oppressive and impolitic nature of the acts complained of.[89] Changes were taking place in the Grafton ministry which boded evil to the colonies. Shelburne, the most liberal friend of the Americans, was succeeded by Hillsborough in December, 1767, and Conway by Weymouth, January 20, 1768. While the circular letter was on its way to the colonies and to Westminster (for it was intended also for England), events were occurring at Boston which showed the temper of the people, and had no inconsiderable influence upon the action of the British government. The anniversary of the repeal of the Stamp Act, March 18, 1768, did not pass without popular demonstrations of ill-will to the customs officials, nor did the governor escape abusive language from the mob.[90] For some years these officers had been resisted in making seizures of uncustomed goods, which were frequently rescued from their possession by interested parties, and the determination of the commissioners of customs to break up this practice frequently led to collisions; but no flagrant outbreak occurred until the seizure of John Hancock's sloop "Liberty" (June 10, 1768), laden with a cargo of Madeira wine. The officer in charge, refusing a bribe, was forcibly locked up in the cabin, the greater part of the cargo was removed, and the remainder entered at the custom-house as the whole cargo. This led to seizure of the vessel, said to have been the first made by the commissioners, and for security she was placed under the guns of the "Romney", a man-of-war in the harbor. For this the revenue officers were roughly handled by the mob. Their boat was burned, their houses threatened, and they, with their alarmed families, took refuge on board the "Romney", and finally in the Castle. These proceedings undoubtedly led to the sending additional military forces to Boston in September.[91]

The General Court was in session at the time, but no effectual proceedings were taken against the rioters. Public sympathy was with them in their purposes, if not in their measures. But the inhabitants of Boston, in town meeting on the 14th, in an address to Governor Bernard, probably drawn by Otis,[92] among other matters complained of being invaded by an armed force. With grim humor, the address represents the commissioners, who had fled for safety to the Castle, as having "of their own notion" relinquished the exercise of their commission, and expressed the hope that they would never resume it, and demanded of the governor to give immediate order for the removal of the "Romney" from the harbor. Some weeks later (June 30) the Council passed the customary resolution, setting forth "their utter abhorrence and detestation" of the riotous proceedings, and desiring that the governor, through the attorney-general, would prosecute all guilty persons, that they and "their abettors might be brought to condign punishment."[93]

When the circular letter was laid before the ministry, April 15, 1768, it caused great excitement in parliamentary circles, and led to the gravest mistake which was made by the government during the entire Revolutionary period. Other measures, perhaps without exception, had a show of necessity; nor, as the British Constitution was then interpreted by the highest authority, were they clearly unconstitutional. But when the Earl of Hillsborough, speaking for the king, June 21, 1768, required the Massachusetts House of Representatives to rescind their circular letter on pain of immediate dissolution, there was a violation of the constitutional right of the House to express their opposition to measures deemed injurious to their constituents, and to communicate their sentiments to other colonies whose interests were similarly affected. Equally unwise was Hillsborough's letter to the colonial assemblies, requiring them to disregard the Massachusetts circular. Responses to the circular letter, when they expressed the sentiments of the assemblies rather than those of the royal governors, were in full sympathy with Massachusetts.[94] The representatives, says Bernard, "have been much elated, within these three or four days, by some letters they have received in answer to the circular letter",[95] and Hutchinson thought that "the strength which would be derived from this union confirmed many who would otherwise have been wavering."[96] But when Governor Bernard (June 21, 1768) communicated to the House instructions from the king to rescind the circular letter, and recommended immediate action as of important consequence to the province, no doubt it caused anxiety. Under a similar pressure New York had receded. The House apprehended the gravity of the situation, and took seven or eight days for consideration, and even then desired to consult their constituents. But when Bernard informed them that further delay would be considered as a refusal, they voted, 92 to 17, not to rescind, and "the number 92", Hutchinson says, "was auspicious, and 17 of ill omen, for many months after, not only in Massachusetts Bay, but in most of the colonies on the continent."[97] They doubtless were influenced by Otis, who spoke with great power, and, according to Bernard, unsparingly denounced the ministry and "passed an encomium on Oliver Cromwell."[98] Massachusetts deliberately disobeyed the king's command, and defied his power. Before dissolution, the House agreed (June 30, 1768) upon a message to the governor, arguing the question very fully, and declaring their refusal to rescind; a letter to the Earl of Hillsborough; and a Report and Resolves, in which they repeat the story of their grievances, doings, and rights with great fullness and ability.[99]

The effect of this action, so honorable to the House, was unfavorable upon the ministry. De Berdt, the London agent, in a letter to the House, August 12, 1768, giving the substance of a conversation with the Earl of Hillsborough, says that his lordship informed him that he would have used his influence for the repeal of the Townshend Acts, and believed he could have obtained it; but since the news respecting the non-rescinding of the circular letter, the matter was in doubt. "The crown must be supported, or we sink into a state of anarchy."

In July, 1768, General Gage, then at New York, had been directed by the ministry to remove one or two regiments to Boston; and when the news of the riots of March 18 reached England, on August 14, two additional regiments were ordered from Ireland. When rumors of these orders became rife in Boston, there were indications that the country would be raised to prevent the landing of the troops; but different counsels prevailed. A town meeting was held in Faneuil Hall on the 12th and 13th of September, which agreed to call a meeting of the towns.[100] Ninety-six towns and eight districts were finally represented in the convention which assembled at the time appointed (September 22). Their first act was a petition to the governor setting forth their apprehensions in respect to a standing army. This the governor refused to receive, but he expressed his opinion of the unauthorized meeting they were holding, directed them to separate instantly, and threatened to assert the prerogatives of the crown. After a recital of grievances, with declarations of loyalty and promises of assistance to civil magistrates in suppressing disorders, they adjourned on the 29th. Their proceedings were moderate,—a moderation induced, as some supposed, by the arrival at Nantasket, September 28, from Halifax of a fleet of seven armed vessels, with nearly a thousand troops.[101] If contempt of the royal prerogative, after the refusal to rescind the circular letter, could have been more pointedly expressed, it was by holding a provincial convention without sanction of law. Between these measures and April 19, 1775, no step involving a new principle was taken. The burning of the "Gaspee" in 1772 and the destruction of the tea in 1773 were merely the filling in of a picture firmly sketched in outline.

The refusal of the provincial council and of the town to provide for quartering the royal troops on their arrival was a practical nullification of the Mutiny Act, which served still further to strain the relations between Massachusetts and the British ministry. Parliament came together November 8, 1768. Both Houses were swift to condemn the late proceedings of the General Court of Massachusetts and of the town of Boston. On December 15 these acts were made the basis of eight resolutions, introduced by the Earl of Hillsborough, and an address to the king, moved by the Duke of Bedford, to obtain information respecting the actors in the riotous proceedings since December 10, 1767, with a view, if deemed advisable, of ordering their transportation to England for trial. These were passed by the House of Commons (January 26, 1769), after a debate in which the whole subject of American affairs was discussed.[102] The news of these proceedings at first created some uneasiness in Boston among those implicated; but apprehension subsided when it was learned from their friends in England that the voting of Bedford's Address by the two Houses was merely political;[103] that lenient, not rigorous, measures were intended by the ministry; and that the late act laying duties would be repealed. This intelligence reassured the patriotic party, but correspondingly depressed the tories, who saw no hope in the vacillating policy of the ministry.[104] A policy was much needed. Chatham had resigned in October, 1768, and the Duke of Grafton became the nominal, as he had long been the real, head of the ministry. Lord North, Chancellor of the Exchequer, had charge of the revenue. The Duke of Grafton favored the total repeal of the Townshend duties, but Lord North favored the retention of that on tea, as a matter of principle; and so it was decided by a majority of one in the Cabinet Council. Parliament rose May 9, and four days later the Earl of Hillsborough reported to the several colonies the resolutions of the government on the circular letter. Lord Hillsborough's letter gave little comfort to the Massachusetts House of Representatives, whose firmness was commended by Pennsylvania and Virginia, and the threat of transportation of the Bostonians to England for trial under a statute of Henry VIII. called forth from the latter colony vigorous resolutions and an address to the king, May 16, 1769.[105] Jefferson has given the history of these resolutions.[106] This action did not meet the approval of Lord Botetourt, the governor of Virginia, and he dissolved the House of Burgesses. This, however, did not prevent the delegates from meeting at the Apollo, in the Raleigh tavern, and, as citizens, entering into a non-importation agreement which bore the names of Henry, Randolph, Jefferson, and Washington, and became an example to all the colonies.[107] During the remainder of the year 1769 the progress of the Revolution was confined chiefly to Massachusetts, and there it assumed the form of an altercation between the House of Representatives and the governor in respect to the presence of the king's forces.[108] Coming in for their annual session near the end of May, the House, unwilling even to organize in the presence of the military, sent a message to the governor, remonstrating against so gross a breach of its privileges, and requesting him to give orders to remove the standing army, the main guard of which was kept with cannon pointed at the very door of the State House.[109] There was no design in this arrangement, but it was very menacing, nevertheless. For nearly two weeks messages kept passing back and forth, to the purport, on the governor's side, that he had no authority to remove the troops, they being under the commander-in-chief; and on the part of the House, that they would do no business while the troops remained. It occurred to the governor that, if he could not remove the troops, he could remove the General Court; and this he did by directing the secretary to adjourn it to Cambridge. The Court did not appreciate this stroke of humor, and proceeded to business only after a protest of necessity. But Bernard's career was drawing to a close. June 28th he informed the House that the king desired him to repair to Great Britain. July 8th the House passed nineteen resolutions,[110] covering the whole ground of dispute with the home government, and arraigning the governor for various political misdemeanors. They petitioned for his recall; and Governor Bernard left the province, accompanied by the reproaches of the House and manifestations of joy by the people. He did not succeed in a position in which all who had preceded him and all who followed him failed. He could not serve well two masters.

PLAN OF KING STREET AND VICINITY.

Note.—The plan on the following page is a reduction from that used in the trial following the massacre, and was made by Paul Revere. It now belongs to the MS. collections of the writer of this chapter. The key to the letters in the street, a part of the original drawing, is lost. Those attached to the buildings, etc., are substituted for the legends which are in the original, and which would be illegible in the reduced scale of the present reproduction. They signify as follows:—

A, Doct^r Jones; B, Doct^r Roberts; C, Brigdens, goldsmith; D, John Nazro, store; E, Main Street; F, Town house; G, Brazen Head; H, Benj. Kent, Esq., house; I, Mrs. Clapham; J, Exchange Tavern; K, Exchange Lane; L, Custom House; M, Col. Marshall's house; N, "N.B. The pricked line is the Gutter;" O, Mr. Paine's house; P, Mr. Davis's house; Q, Mr. Amory's house; R, Quaker Lane; S, Warden and Vernon's shop; T, Levi Jening, shop; U, Mr. Peck, wa[t]ch maker, shop; V, Court Square; W, whipping-post; X, J. & D. Waldo, shop; Y, Pudin Lane; Z, G. C. Phillips, house; 1, Ezk. Prince, Esq., office; 2, Guard House; 3, Mr. Bowse, shop.

Revere engraved a large folding picture of the massacre, which appeared in the official Short Narrative, which has been reproduced in the Old State House Memorial (Boston, 1882, p. 82) and in the Mag. of Amer. Hist. (Jan., 1886, p. 9), in an article on Revere by E. H. Goss. A reëngraving of Revere's plate is in the London (Bingley) edition of the same, and on a smaller scale in the other London (Dilby) edition, and this last is reproduced in the Mem. Hist. Boston, iii. 40. Thomas's Mass. Kalendar (1772) has a woodcut representation, after Revere's drawing. Cf. nos. 579 to 583 of the Catal. of the Cab. of the Mass. Hist. Soc.—Ed.

When Sir Francis Bernard[111] sailed for England on board the "Rippon", in August, 1769, he left the administration in the hands of Lieutenant-Governor Hutchinson. For several months nothing of importance took place, except misunderstandings growing out of the non-observance of the non-importation agreements (which were renewed March, 1770), and quarrels between the troops and the populace which resulted in the deplorable scenes of March 5, 1770. The circumstances which led to this affair are too well known to need recital in detail. While the town was occupied by British regiments, collisions were constantly occurring. None knew better than the populace the helplessness of the soldiers to resent insult or injury by arms. Even in case of riots, the reading of the Act and the intervention of the civil power were necessary preliminaries to firing upon the crowd. Nothing but confinement of the soldiers to their barracks could have prevented collisions with the populace. The patriot leaders had determined to get rid of the regiments at all cost. The affair at Gray's wharf on Saturday, March 2, led to the more serious affray on Monday, the 5th. On the evening of that day, between seven and eight o'clock, the cry of fire and ringing of bells drew together a large crowd, which was followed by a collision with the troops, and resulted in the death of three persons and wounding of several others, two mortally. The Boston Massacre soon became known throughout the country, and aroused a spirit of resistance hitherto unfelt. Its immediate effect was the withdrawal of the troops from the town to the Castle, on account of the resolute attitude assumed by Samuel Adams. The men who lost their lives in this affray were buried in one grave, to which they were followed by an immense procession, and for some years the anniversary of their death was observed by commemorative ceremonies. All classes in the community joined in execrating the soldiers, and gave no ear to justifying or mitigating circumstances. Inflamed and grossly inaccurate accounts of the transactions were drawn up and scattered through the colonies and sent to Great Britain. But time somewhat allayed the first feeling of animosity; and when the facts became better known, it clearly appeared that the soldiers had fired, without orders, upon the crowd only when it had become necessary in defence of their lives. Captain Preston (October 24) and the soldiers (November 27) engaged in the affray were brought to trial on a charge of murder, and were all acquitted, except two soldiers who were convicted of manslaughter. These were slightly branded, and all of them were liberated. John Adams and Josiah Quincy, Jr., appeared in their defence, and with equal honor the jurors did their duty in accordance with the law and the evidence. The news of the events of March 5 became known in London April 21, through Mr. Robertson. one of the commissioners of the customs.[112]

THE COURT AT THE TRIAL

A fac-simile of a group of original autographs belonging to the writer of this chapter. Winthrop was the clerk of the court. The Attorney-General Sewall drew the indictment, but did not appear for the king.—Ed.

The Townshend act, though drawn conformably to the colonial distinctions between internal and external taxes, produced the same dissatisfaction as the Stamp Act had done. There was no real difference. If Parliament could lay external taxes, it could lay internal taxes. Non-importation agreements in the several colonies followed in 1769, and so long as they were observed, even without great strictness, were disastrous to British merchants, the value of whose exports to the American colonies between Christmas in 1767 and Christmas in 1769 fell off nearly £700,000 sterling; or, if we take the figures for those colonies where the agreement was most effective, in New England from £419,000 to £207,000, in New York from £482,000 to £74,000.[113] Though the agreement was not observed equally in all the colonies, nor in entire good faith in any,—Massachusetts and Rhode Island, particularly, suffered some discredit in this respect, as compared with New York and Philadelphia,—the general result seriously alarmed British merchants, who petitioned Parliament for the repeal of the Townshend act.[114] These petitions were considered in the House of Commons March 5, 1770, and Lord North, in accordance with Earl Hillsborough's circular letter, proposed to take off all the duties laid by the Townshend act of 1767, except that on tea, which he would preserve as a sort of declaratory act, especially since the conduct of the Americans had been such as to prevent an entire compliance with their wishes.[115] Governor Pownall offered as an amendment the entire repeal of the act, and supported his motion in an extremely able and interesting speech.[116]

THE COUNSEL OF THE GOVERNMENT AND OF THE ACCUSED

A fac-simile of a group of signatures belonging to the writer of this chapter.—Ed.

Pownall's amendment was lost by a vote of 204 to 142. The merchants failed to procure a repeal of the duties, although Alderman Trecothic made one more effort in their behalf, on the 9th of April, "in a very sensible speech."[117]

When the news of the Boston Massacre reached England late in April, 1770, it recalled attention to American affairs, which, after the defeat of Trecothic's motion, seemed to have been laid aside for the remainder of the session. Trecothic called for the papers.[118] While waiting for them, Governor Pownall made a speech on the "powers of government [which] the crown can and ought to grant to the dependencies of the realm; what form and power of government the British subject in those parts ought to be governed by; what powers are granted, both civil and military; and what arrangements, and means taken, for administering and executing these powers."[119] Burke, in the second of eight resolutions, affirmed "that a principal cause of the disorders which have prevailed in North America hath arisen from the ill-judged and inconsistent instructions given, from time to time, by persons in administration, to the governors of some of the provinces of North America."[120] Later, the same resolutions were brought forward in the House of Lords by the Duke of Richmond. But Burke was not acting in good faith. A close observer wrote at the time: "It is plain enough that these motions were not made for the sake of the colonies, but merely to serve the purposes of the opposition, to render the ministry, if possible, more odious, so that they may themselves come into the conduct of affairs, while it remains very doubtful whether they would do much better, if at all, than their predecessors."[121] This resulted well for the colonies, and, in the long run, for the progress of liberal ideas in both countries. But to those who wished for the continuance of the British connection, and believed in its practicability, it must have been a matter for profound regret that the liberal leaders, from Chatham to Fox, simply found fault with the acts of the ministry, and proposed nothing instead. The ministry, conciliatory to-day and severe to-morrow, had no fixed policy. American affairs gave way to the exigencies of a general election, just as we have lately seen in this country, great interests jeopardized by the unwillingness of both political parties to treat them on the eve of a presidential election. If, instead of this vacillating and inconsistent policy, both parties had given their attention to devising some rational system of colonial administration, as proposed by Pownall,[122] leaving local affairs to the colonists, but placing imperial affairs under a permanent board, not changeable with every ministry, the colonies and the mother-country might have remained united, perhaps for a generation, longer.

The Townshend duties, except those on tea, were repealed in April; but this did not satisfy the colonists, and dissensions arose among the merchants of the several colonies in regard to the non-importation agreement. Those of New York became dissatisfied with Boston and Newport merchants, who had agreed to import non-dutiable articles, even before the news of the repealing act; and in October, 1770, all sections fell into the same plan, but no teas were to be imported. The Sons of Liberty in New York in vain resisted this arrangement.

In Massachusetts the patriots were seldom without causes of just complaint. Governor Hutchinson, in obedience to instructions of General Gage, had delivered (September 10) the keys of Castle William, in Boston harbor, which belonged to the province, to Colonel Dalrymple, who was the servant of the king; and following royal instructions, had refused to convene the General Court at Boston, instead of Cambridge, or to assent to any bill by which the assessors (in 1771) could tax the officers of the crown.[123] These exercises of the royal prerogative, and the payment of the governor's salary by the crown, involved constitutional questions of higher import, as the British Constitution then stood, than the question of parliamentary supremacy, and were matters of unceasing contention. In 1770, Franklin was chosen London agent of the colony, although not without some objection, in the place of De Berdt, recently deceased (May), and Hutchinson was appointed governor in March, 1771.

In 1772, although it was a year of general quiet, two events happened, which, in different ways, promoted the purposes of the more ardent patriots,—the burning of the "Gaspee" at Providence in June, and the formation of committees of correspondence in November. On the 9th of June, Lieutenant Dudingston, commander of the "Gaspee", who had shown great activity in the revenue service at Rhode Island, in undertaking to intercept the "Providence Packet", Captain Lindsay, ran aground on Namquit Point. While in this position, the "Gaspee" was boarded on the following night by a party of citizens led by John Brown, a respectable merchant. In the mêlée the lieutenant was wounded and the vessel was burned. The affair created a great sensation in England, and it was ordered that those engaged in it should be sent to England for trial. For this purpose the home government appointed colonial commissioners, who sat at Newport from the 4th to the 22 January, 1773, to inquire into the matter.[124] At the end of their deliberations they required Wanton, the governor of Rhode Island, to arrest the offenders, for trial in England. He appealed for directions to the Assembly, as did Stephen Hopkins, the chief-justice of the highest court. That body referred the matter to the discretion of the chief-justice, and he accordingly refused to arrest, or to allow the arrest of, any person for transportation.[125] Nothing came of the order except ill-humor in England and indignation in the colonies, where it was regarded as an invasion of their constitutional right of trial by their peers.

Samuel Adams was always busy on political subjects; nor were subjects wanting. The Earl of Hillsborough had been succeeded in the American department (August 4, 1772) by Lord Dartmouth; but the change in administration made no change in the policy of paying the salaries of the provincial judges by the king, and thus rendering them less dependent on the popular will. This was thought to be in derogation of colonial rights, especially so long as the judges held their seats only during the king's pleasure.

JOSEPH WARREN.

From a pastel owned by the heirs of the late Hon. C. F. Adams. It is unfinished below the chest.—Ed.

Accordingly, a town meeting assembled in Faneuil Hall, October 28, and adjourned November 2d. Samuel Adams moved "that a committee of correspondence be appointed, to consist of twenty-one persons, to state the rights of the colonies, and of this province in particular, as men, as Christians, and as subjects; to communicate and publish the same to the several towns in this province and to the world, as the sense of this town, with the infringements and violations thereof that have been, or from time to time may be, made; also requesting of each town a free communication of their sentiments on this subject."[126] This was the beginning of an organization (November 22), entered into with hesitation by some of the leading patriots of Boston, which finally secured the public confidence, and became a great power for the concentration of popular sentiment.

Slightly reduced from an original in the Boston Public Library.—Ed.

It undoubtedly led to the larger measure of intercolonial correspondence instituted by Virginia during the next spring; and not the least of its claims to consideration is the fact that it engaged the attention and secured the services of Joseph Warren as the trusted lieutenant of Samuel Adams.[127]

The American Revolution rests upon grounds so high and clear, and was carried forward by measures so honorably conceived and so persistently adhered to, that all who adopt its principles must regret any circumstance in its history by which the opinion of candid people is divided. Such a division is found in connection with the Hutchinson letters. The story is briefly this:—In the years 1768 and 1769 Thomas Hutchinson and Andrew Oliver, then officers in Massachusetts, appointed by the crown, and sworn to a faithful discharge of their duties, with several other persons, in a private correspondence with Thomas Whately, an English gentleman, formerly, but not then, connected with the government, communicated facts about colonial affairs the truth of which has never been impugned, and expressed opinions which Tories might honestly entertain. These letters in some unexplained manner found their way—either from the cabinet of the person to whom they were addressed, after his death, or, as is more likely, from the papers of George Grenville, to whom Whately had probably entrusted them for perusal—into the hands of Franklin, the colony agent in London, by whom they were sent in 1773, with an unsigned letter, to the speaker of the Massachusetts House. The injunctions in respect to them were loosely regarded, and they were published by a breach of faith which implicated a large body of men. They were made the basis of a petition by the General Court to the king for the removal of their writers from the offices which they held; but after a hearing before the Privy Council, January 29, 1774, the petition, which the province did not attempt to support by evidence, was dismissed as "groundless, vexatious, and scandalous." Two days later, Dr. Franklin was removed from the office of deputy postmaster-general for the colonies,—a circumstance of great consequence to the American cause, since it irrevocably committed to it one who had been thought its lukewarm promoter.

Massachusetts, which had led in most of the Revolutionary movements, did not take the lead in establishing committees of correspondence between the colonies. That honor belongs to Virginia; and its chief cause was the action of the commissioners in the "Gaspee" case. March 12, 1773, Dabney Carr, who had been put forward at the suggestion of Jefferson, moved certain resolutions in the Virginia House of Burgesses, which, supported by Richard Henry Lee and Patrick Henry, were unanimously adopted. Rhode Island followed in adopting similar measures. On May 28th the Massachusetts House responded to Virginia.[128] Hutchinson justly considers this as one of the most important and daring movements of the patriotic Party during the Revolution.[129] It paved the way for the union of the colonies and for the General Congress which was convened at Philadelphia the next year.

To the patriots of Philadelphia belongs the credit of making the first public demonstration against the project of the East India Company for transporting their accumulated stock of tea to America, in a series of resolutions passed October 18, at a meeting held in the State House.[130] News of the intention of the company to do this had reached America in August. Samuel Adams was ready. The towns in the province of Massachusetts were aroused by Joseph Warren's circular letter in behalf of the Committee of Correspondence, September 21, 1773, and the Philadelphia resolutions were adopted in Faneuil Hall. Constant communications were kept up between the importing colonies. Ships loaded with tea were dispatched about the month of August to Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston, but the tone of the public press in those towns indicated a determination not to allow the sale of the cargoes. The Charleston consignees, on the request of the people, resigned; those at Boston refused. November 28, one of the tea ships arrived in Boston, followed not long after by two more. These were placed under guard by the patriots. The consignees would neither resign nor return the tea, and the time was near at hand when they would be seized for non-payment of duties. Thursday, December 16, a large meeting of the citizens was held at the Old South Church, at which Josiah Quincy, Jr., spoke in words that have become historical. After all efforts to induce Hutchinson to grant a pass for the return of the tea (which he thought would be illegal) had proved futile, a war-whoop was sounded at the door of the Old South, and a large company of men disguised as Indians rushed to Griffin's wharf. Teas to the value of £18,000 were thrown from the vessels into the sea, and the same treatment was bestowed upon another cargo which came some weeks later. This act, although applauded throughout the colonies, was not imitated by them; other means were found to prevent the sale of the teas.[131]

While the news of these events was on its way to England, John Adams signalized his zeal in the patriotic cause and evinced his faith in the provincial constitution by leading in the impeachment of Chief-Justice Oliver for having accepted his salary from the crown instead of the people, in derogation of their fundamental rights.[132]

Governor Hutchinson, finding himself powerless to quell the storm, determined to put himself in closer communication with the ministry by going to England, but was delayed by the death of Lieutenant-Governor Oliver, until he was finally superseded by General Gage, who arrived in Boston May 13, 1774. As he was about to leave, he received an address, dated May 30, approving his conduct, and signed by many respectable Tories; but some of them were afterwards obliged by threats of popular violence to make their recantations in the newspapers. June 1, he sailed from Boston, and never saw his native shore again.[133] In the mean time an account of the destruction of the teas had reached England, and produced great indignation, which was shared to some extent by the most ardent friends of the colonists, whose efforts to mitigate and delay the punishment visited upon the offending people of Boston were unavailing. On the 7th of March, the king sent a message communicating the despatches from America; and on the 14th Lord North brought in the Boston Port Bill, which transferred the commerce of Boston, after the 1st of June, to Salem, but gave power to the king, in council, to restore it, upon the return of order and full compensation to the owners for the teas destroyed. Having passed both Houses, this received the king's assent March 31, and took effect June 1. While the measure was pending in the House of Lords, Lord North introduced another bill, which provided for the appointment of councillors by the crown, the appointment and removal by the governor of judges of the superior courts, justices of the peace, and other minor officers, and, with the consent of the council, of sheriffs. The governor's permission was made necessary for the holding of town meetings, except for the choice of officers. It was also provided by another act that offenders and witnesses might be transported for trial to the other colonies, or to England.[134]

These severe measures did not pass without resistance or protest by the liberal party in Parliament. They reached Boston June 2, 1774, were printed in the newspapers on the 3d, and soon found their way into all the colonies, where they excited indignation against the ministry and sympathy for the people of Boston, which was manifested by liberal contributions for relief when afterwards the loss of business had brought distress. If anything more was needed to arouse the anger of New England, it was supplied by the Quebec Bill, less objectionable to that section because it extended the bounds of Canada over regions for which the colonies had contended, than because it perpetuated civil and ecclesiastical institutions hateful to the descendants of Puritans. Hutchinson thought that these severe measures would bring the recalcitrant Bostonians to reason. But he was mistaken. The matter had already passed from the forum of reason, and was reserved for the arbitrament of impending war. Instead of being subdued, the spirit of the people became more resolute.

The Boston Port Bill, designed as a punishment for the destruction of the tea, brought ruin to the commerce of Boston, and distress to all whose subsistence depended upon it; but its political effect was to draw the colonies together, and that was so effectually promoted by the vigorous action of the committee of correspondence that the idea of a continental congress soon became general.

A CONTEMPORARY PRINT.

Sketched from a finely executed mezzotint, published in London in 1774. The man thrown from his horse seems to be Gage. The original belongs to the Boston Public Library.—Ed.

On May 26, 1774, Governor Gage informed the General Court that by the king's command its sessions would be held at Salem from June 1st until further orders. The court was convened at that place, and the patriots, guided by Samuel Adams, were making arrangements for a general congress at Philadelphia, when the governor, getting a hint of their action, sent Flucker, the provincial secretary, with a message to dissolve them. The secretary, however, found the door of the chamber of the Representatives locked; and before it was opened, that body had determined that "a committee should be appointed to meet, as soon as may be, the committees that are or shall be appointed by the several colonies on this continent, to consult together upon the present state of the colonies", and had chosen James Bowdoin, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Thomas Cushing, and Robert Treat Paine delegates thereto. Such was the origin in Massachusetts of the first Continental Congress which met at Philadelphia September 5, 1774.[135]

The 17th of June, the day on which delegates to the Continental Congress were chosen, is also notable for "the Port Act" meeting in Faneuil Hall. From the general distress among the laboring classes in Boston the Tories had expected a reaction in favor of the ministry; consequently a counter demonstration by the patriots was deemed advisable. In the absence of Samuel Adams, then at Salem, John Adams was chosen moderator, and from this time he was one of the most conspicuous actors in the American Revolution. Joseph Warren was also present, and active in the cause which, a year later, he consecrated with his blood. The action of the town became widely known from a broadside, which is here reproduced.

After the repeal of the Stamp Act and the modifying of the Townshend act, there remained nothing to threaten seriously the pockets of the colonists. The tea duty had been retained to save the claim of parliamentary supremacy, which was not likely to be asserted in any offensive way. The navigation acts must soon have given way to a more liberal and equitable policy, and everything out of Massachusetts—certainly out of New England—indicated that the people were becoming tired of strife, and were ready for a return to more cordial relations with the mother country. This was what Samuel Adams feared, and determined to prevent. To this end nothing could have been more efficient than his policy in respect to the teas, and nothing more to his mind than the consequent action of Parliament. After this a contention which had been mainly local became general. The essential modification of the Massachusetts charter was a blow which imperilled every colonial government, and made the cause of Massachusetts that of every other colony,—a cause for which other colonies manifested their sympathy not only in relieving the distress occasioned by the closing of the port of Boston, but by uniting in declarations of their common right to maintain the integrity of a system of government which had been forming through many generations.

The Congress of 1774 was the inevitable result of the conduct of the British ministry subsequent to the peace of 1763. This served only to engender discontent in the colonies, and to strengthen the purpose of the patriotic party to hasten a revolution which many regarded as inevitable in time. The parliamentary government of the colonies fell into confusion for want of a well-defined policy and a consistent administration. But instead of such a policy, colonial affairs were regulated by ministers as wide apart in their views as Grenville, Rockingham, Townshend, Grafton, Shelburne, Hillsborough, Lord North, and Earl Dartmouth. Nothing could have kept the colonies as an integral part of the empire except some plan such as Franklin or Pownall might have devised and Shelburne might have administered. But the colonies were remote and but little known, and in the complication of European affairs, and amid the contentions of parties, they received only slight and intermittent attention from the ministry or the Parliament. No statesman save Choiseul seems to have understood the completeness of the change in interests which had been brought about by the extinction of the French power in America, or the necessary advance of the colonies under a new régime to a place among the great powers of the world. The colonists themselves felt, rather than understood, their relations to nationality and to the commerce of the world. This was the time chosen by the British ministry to impose upon them the restrictive mercantile system of Charles II.

BROADSIDE, JUNE 17, 1774.

The original is in the Boston Public Library. There are other significant broadsides of about this time. On June 8th, the citizens of Boston issued an address to their countrymen relative to the blockade of their port, and on July 26th they adopted a letter on the blockade, which was sent to the several towns,—both in broadside.—Ed.

It is doubtful, however, whether any policy could have rendered permanent the subjection of the colonies, even such a nominal subjection as that in which they had always been held. In looking for the causes of the Revolution, it is well to discriminate between those which were general in their effects and those which were local. The latter had been more actively operative and of longer existence in Massachusetts, where the Revolution began, than in any other colony. These were interwoven with the civil and ecclesiastical history of her people, which made them peculiarly apprehensive in respect to threatened invasion of rights which they had secured only by expatriation. Although the peculiar experience of Massachusetts did not cause the Revolution, it is doubtful whether, except for that experience, the Revolution would have occurred for some years. Nor was resistance to the Anglican ecclesiastical pretensions, connected as they were with the most odious features of the prerogative, confined to New England, but made itself felt in New York and in Virginia.[136] The general causes were the ever present and ever active strife between parties,—the liberals and the conservatives,—arising from a diversity of political ideas, and intensified by ambition, interest, and personal animosities. But the proximate causes of the Revolution will be found in that change of policy which led the ministry, at the close of a war that had strained the colonies to the utmost, to enforce the navigation laws, to lay taxes, to invoke the prerogative, and finally to overthrow the government of Massachusetts, and thus to threaten the autonomy of the people under the provincial constitutions.

[CRITICAL ESSAY ON THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION.]

THE change in British colonial policy contemplated by the ministry during the progress of the French War, and entered upon between 1763 and 1774, developed those causes of dissatisfaction which had been intermittently operative for more than a century, and finally led to war in 1775. In the preceding chapter I have omitted, or passed lightly over, many incidents of the period which had no particular political significance, and dwelt more at length on the principles and causes which led to the Revolution. I shall pursue the same course in this essay.

The growth and development of the colonies brought forward, in succession, two practical questions. The first was, how far the interests of the colonies, as appendages to the crown, but subject, nevertheless, to an undefined parliamentary authority, could be subordinated to the interests of the trading and manufacturing classes in England. This was purely an economic question, and the answer to it in England assumed the subjection of the colonies and the validity of the mercantile system, neither of which was vigorously contested by the colonists so long as neither was rigidly enforced. But the question changed during the progress, and more especially at the close, of the French War, and then became this: How far could the interests of the colonies be subordinated to the necessities of an imperial revenue and the political policy of an empire? Hence arose the second question: What degree of autonomy could be allowed to the colonies, as integral parts of the empire, entitled to its privileges and subject to its burdens, when both were to be determined consistently with the constitutional prerogatives of the king and the supremacy of Parliament on the one side, and on the other with the natural and acquired rights of the colonies?

Regarded purely as an economic question, it was a matter of indifference to the colonists whether their pockets were depleted by the enforcement of an old policy or by the adoption of a new policy. The Sugar Act of 1733, if enforced, would have produced a parliamentary tax. The Grenville Act of 1764 did no more. But the former was intended as a regulation of trade; the latter to produce a revenue. This difference of intent raised a constitutional question, and it was on this constitutional question, behind which lay the real economic question, that the patriotic party chose to fight the battle. Grenville's Act, as an external tax, produced but little; and the Stamp Act, as an internal tax, not a farthing.

It was, therefore, mainly on the constitutional question—of the right to tax, rather than to throw off intolerable burdens—that people divided into parties. As Webster said, "They went to war against a preamble. They fought seven years against a declaration."[137] To understand the attitude of the tories on the economic question as well as on the constitutional question, we must consider the state of colonial affairs which led to the Congress of 1754, and the tentative efforts of that body to find consistent and reciprocal relations of the colonies to the imperial government, for union, defence, and revenue. To understand the attitude of the patriots, we must consider the reasons of the ministry for rejecting such a union, and their efforts to force each colony into relations to the crown and Parliament deemed by them consistent and reciprocal, but regarded by the colonists as subversive of their rights as Englishmen, and of their rights acquired by charters, growth, development, and usage, which, as they justly claimed, had become constitutional.

Though the enforcement of the navigation laws and acts of trade, at the close of the French War, is regarded by historians as one of the principal causes of the Revolution, I fail to find a satisfactory or entirely accurate account of them, either as the basis of the mercantile system, or, later, of a revenue system. Such a treatment would hardly be practicable in the limits of a general history. These laws have been elaborately discussed by Thomas Mun, Sir Josiah Child, Sir William Patty, Charles Davenant, Joshua Gee, John Ashley, and, not to mention others, Adam Smith and Henry Brougham. But these authors wrote with reference to their influence, as part of the mercantile system, on British interests. How they affected colonial interests is the question which chiefly concerns us.

To answer this question we must know not merely what those laws enacted, but to what state of colonial trade they originally and successively applied. For instance, what, from time to time, by development of agricultural or other industries, between 1640 and 1774, had the colonists to sell, and what, as they increased in wealth, did they wish to purchase; and where, left to the unrestricted course of trade, would they have carried their products, and where purchased their merchandise? In other words, what would they have done and become under free trade?

Then we must know what changes in this normal condition of trade were intended by the navigation laws, and to what extent and with what effect their partial enforcement operated before 1763. With these facts before us, we could estimate with some exactness the valid objections to the new system on the part of the colonists, when enforced by the British navy, commissioners of customs, admiralty courts, and writs of assistance, and what was their influence in bringing on the Revolution.

Having made up the debit account, we should be able to set against it the compensations in naval protection, bounties,[138] drawbacks, British capital, and long credits, in developing colonial agriculture and commerce.[139]

Unfortunately there does not exist any history of the commerce of the American colonies, from the Commonwealth to 1774, as affected by navigation laws, acts of trade, and revenue measures. No one who has read the twenty-nine acts which comprise this legislation will recommend their perusal to another; for, apart from their volume, the construction of these acts is difficult,—difficult even to trained lawyers like John Adams, whose business it was to advise clients in respect to them.[140] Nor have special students, like Bancroft, stated their effect with exact precision, as in respect to the Act of 1663;[141] and notably in respect to the Townshend Act of 1767,[142] where his error amounts to a perversion of its meaning. Palfrey has been more successful, though not entirely free from error.[143] The author of the Development of Constitutional Liberty,[144] a work of uncommon research and ability, reads the act of 1672 as though it prohibited the carrying of fish from Massachusetts to Rhode Island except by the way of England, failing to notice that it was not one of the "enumerated articles", or that even those could pass directly from colony to colony upon payment, at the place of export, of duties equivalent to those laid upon their importation to England. To give a monographic treatment to the subject would require familiarity with the construction of statutes, and exact information not only of the shifting conditions of colonial trade, but of the evasions which called forth supplemental acts, or constructions of existing acts by the Board of Trade.[145]

In Burke's Account of the European Settlements in America[146] much may be found respecting colonial products and commerce, and especially those of New England (in ch. vii.), which leaves little to be desired concerning the sources of her wealth, and the complaints of British merchants of the methods by which it had been acquired. But I have found nowhere else so full and clear an account of the course of trade of Boston at the time of the Revolution, and the effect upon it of the enforcement of the navigation laws and acts of trade in 1770, as in an anonymous pamphlet entitled Observations of the Merchants at Boston in N. E. upon Several Acts of Parliament, 1770.[147]

An essential part of this history is that which relates to the medium of exchange, and to the attempts of Parliament to regulate the issue of paper money as a legal tender in the interests of British merchants.[148]

The history of the navigation laws suggests the similarity of the causes which led to the successive revolutions of 1689 and 1775 in Massachusetts. The violation of these laws was a principal reason for the abrogation of the first charter, in 1684, graphically described by Palfrey,[149] and their enforcement by courts of admiralty, under Dudley, Andros, and Randolph, was one cause of the overthrow of the Andros government in 1689.[150] The resistance to the same and additional enactments, when enforced as revenue measures, led to the alteration of the second charter in 1774, and this again led to revolution by the united colonies.

One of the most efficient instruments in the execution of the navigation laws was the writs of assistance granted by the court in Massachusetts in 1761.[151]

If the student of American history finds difficulty in accepting the common accounts of the constitutional opinions and motives of two fifths of the colonists, among whom were many who must be regarded as intelligent and respectable, his doubts as to the accuracy of these narratives receive some confirmation when he becomes familiar with the history of the Congress of 1754, the circumstances which led to it, and the opinions of some of its representative men. A comparison of their views will show how far they were willing to go in the "abridgment of English liberties", for the sake of union, defence, and government. Franklin, Hutchinson, and Pownall formed plans for union, and all were at Albany in 1754, and participated in the discussions, though Pownall, not being a member, explained his views outside the congress.[152]

The difference between Pownall, Hutchinson, and Franklin was this: that while all contemplated the union of the empire under one general government as something dictated by the interest of all the parts, Hutchinson limited the power of the President more than Franklin, and Pownall was unwilling to contemplate the transfer of its seat to America; the prospect of which gave Franklin no concern. "The government cannot be long retained without union. Which is best, to have a total separation, or a change of the seat of government?"[153] Speculations as to the results of such a union are now idle, unless for the interest drawn towards them by Professor Seeley's Expansion of England, and Franklin's belief, expressed in 1789, "that if the foregoing plan [that of 1754], or something like it, had been adopted and carried into execution, the subsequent separation of the colonies from the mother country might not so soon have happened, nor the mischiefs suffered on both sides have occurred, perhaps, during another century."[154]

A comparison of the views of such men as Franklin, Hutchinson, and Pownall, expressed before they were forced into partisan relations to the impending conflict, help us in forming opinions respecting their conduct when affairs, no longer within the control of individuals, were swept onward by an uncontrollable impulse. Neither the colonies[155] nor the ministry approved of the proposed union; and when the new policy of raising a revenue was inaugurated the colonies were without defined integral relations to the mother country, and the government without administrative machinery for their regulation. The result was confusion. The press became heated, and an angry war of pamphlets ensued. At first the controversy was confined to the distinction between internal taxes and commercial regulations, but soon it involved the whole question of parliamentary power. This was elaborately and temperately discussed in the Farmer's Letters, by John Dickinson, but nowhere in America with more fulness (within the period covered by this chapter) than by Governor Hutchinson and the two Houses of the Massachusetts General Court, in messages and answers respectively, in January and February, 1773.[156]

So far as the Revolution grew out of the Massachusetts controversy between the king's representatives and the General Court, its progress may be traced in the Speeches of the Governors of Massachusetts, 1765 to 1775, and the Answers of the House of Representatives to the same.[157] These authentic documents, with the Journals of the House and the Records of the Town of Boston, may be referred to as showing the temper with which the parties treated each other, and the questions that were of paramount interest. The student will not find it easy to ascertain the facts which should make the history of the period. Contemporaneous accounts were generally drawn up with a partisan disregard of truth, and too much has been written subsequently in the same spirit. For the critical period of 1768, when the troops were sent over on account of the revenue riots, we have Bernard's Letters, which, though representing only one side, were written under a sense of official responsibility to the government. Though much complained of at the time as wanting in candor, their statements were evaded rather than controverted by the Answer of the Major Part of the Council, in a letter to the Earl of Hillsborough (April 15, 1769), as well as in The Vindication of the Town of Boston (Oct. 18, 1769), drafted by Samuel Adams. For the entire period covered by this chapter, I find no narrative apparently more just, or opinions more candidly expressed, than in Ramsay's History of the American Revolution. Remote from the scene of the conflict, Ramsay shared the passions of neither party.

The most important events of this period were the passage of the Boston Port Bill, and other related measures. The reasons which led to these acts are set forth at length in The Report from the Committee on the Disturbances in the Colony of Massachusetts Bay, April 20, 1774.[158] In this report may be seen the strength of the British case. Franklin's view of the matters referred to in the Report of the Lords may be found in a paper entitled Proceedings in Massachusetts,[159] and the bill itself was discussed in an interesting pamphlet by Josiah Quincy, Jr., Observations on the Act of Parliament.[160]

Franklin's paper was a clever argument in which he treated facts so as to serve his purpose rather than that of historic truth. His use of Oliver's phrase, "to take off the original incendiaries", which was a pleasant ad hominem hit, has been adopted seriously by Bancroft,[161] in a chapter entitled "A Way to Take off the Incendiaries." The concessions which Franklin was willing to make for a settlement of the difficulties, as late as December 4, 1774, may be seen in "Some Special Transactions of Dr. Franklin in London, in Behalf of America", in Ramsay.[162]

[EDITORIAL NOTES.]

The argument of Otis on the Writs of Assistance is the first well-arranged expression of the gathering opposition,[163] and what John Adams called "the heaves and throes of the burning mountain", forerunning the eruption, were shown in James Otis's A vindication of the conduct of the House of Representatives of the province of the Massachusetts-Bay; more particularly, in the last session of the general assembly (Boston, 1762).[164]

John Dickinson and Joseph Galloway were already pitted against each other on the question of maintaining the proprietary government of Pennsylvania, or of seeking a royal one.[165]

Frothingham[166] says the earliest organized action against taxation was when the town of Boston passed instructions to its representatives, May 24, 1764, the original writing of which is among the Samuel Adams MSS. The paper was printed in the newspapers of the day, and shortly afterwards in the famous tract of Otis, The Rights of the British Colonies asserted and proved,[167] in which, however, he failed, with all his fervid and cogent reasoning, to stand in every respect by the advanced position which he had taken in his plea against the Writs of Assistance.[168]

JAMES OTIS.

After a statue of James Otis, by Crawford, in the chapel at Mount Auburn. The usual portrait of Otis is by Blackburn, painted in 1755, and now owned by Mrs. H. B. Rogers. The earliest engraving of it which I have noticed is by A. B. Durand in Tudor, and again in the Worcester Magazine (1826), vol. i. It has been engraved by W. O. Jackman, J. R. Smith, O. Pelton, and best of all by C. Schlecht, in Gay's Pop. Hist. U. S., iii. 332. Cf. Loring's Hundred Boston Orators, and the woodcut in the Mem. Hist. Boston, iii. 6. The earliest engraved likeness is probably a rude cut on the title of Bickerstaff's Almanac (1770), which is reproduced in Lossing's Field-Book of the Rev., i. 486.

There is a photograph of the house where Otis was killed by lightning (May 28, 1783) in Bailey's Andover, p. 86. Cf. Appleton's Journal, xi. 784. The principal detailed authority on the career of Otis (born, 1724; died, 1783) is William Tudor's Life of James Otis, which Lecky, in his England in the Eighteenth Century (iii. 304), calls "a remarkable book from which I have derived much assistance." Francis Bowen wrote the life in Sparks's Amer. Biog., vol. xii. John Adams had an exalted opinion of Otis, and Otis's character receives various touches in Adams's Works (x. 264, 271, 275, 279, 280, 284, 289-295, 299, 300). Bancroft depicts him in 1768 (vol. vi. 120, orig. ed.), but he failed rapidly later by reason of the blows he received in an assault in Sept., 1769, provoked by him. Cf. Greene's Hist. View (p. 322); D. A. Goddard in Mem. Hist. Boston (iii. 140); Barry's Mass. (ii. 259).

One of the ablest as well as one of the most temperate expressions of the stand taken by the colonies was in Stephen Hopkins's Rights of the Colonies examined; published by Authority (Providence, 1765).[169]

Similar arguments were set forth in behalf of Connecticut by its governor.[170]

Already, in 1764, when Oxenbridge Thacher printed his Sentiments of a British American, he had formulated the arguments against the navigation acts and British taxation, which ten years later, in the Congress of 1774, Jay embodied in his Address to the British People.[171]

John Adams, in later years, when distance clarified the atmosphere, looked upon the conflict which Jonathan Mayhew waged with Apthorpe, and with the abettors of all schemes for imposing episcopacy on the people by act of Parliament, as the repelling of an attack upon the people's right to decide such questions for themselves, and as but a forerunner of the great subsequent question.[172]

JONATHAN MAYHEW.

Copied from a mezzotint engraving in the American Antiquarian Society's possession, marked "Richard Jennys, jun., pinxt et fecit."

A portrait by Smibert, and engraved by J. B. Cipriani, is in Hollis's Memoirs (1780), p. 371; and a reëngraving has been made by H. W. Smith. Cf. Bradford's Life of Mayhew; Thornton's Pulpit of the Rev.; Mem. Hist. of Boston, ii. 245, with note on his portraits.

The principal source of detailed information about Mayhew is Alden Bradford's Memoir of the life and writings of Jonathan Mayhew (Boston, 1838). Cf. Tudor's Otis (ch. 10); Thomas Hollis's Memoirs; Tyler's Amer. Lit. (ii. p. 199); touches in John Adams's Works (iv. 29; x. 207, 301); and on his death, Dr. Benjamin Church's Elegy, Dr. Chauncy's discourse, both in 1766, and the Life of Josiah Quincy, Jr., p. 384.

The issue on the question of taxation without representation was forced, after many indications of its coming,[173] when the British Parliament passed the Grenville Act in 1764, and in the next year what is known as the Stamp Act, a tax on business papers, increasing their cost at different rates, but sometimes manyfold.[174] The question of the authorship of the bill is one about which there has been some controversy,[175] and, contrary to the general impression, the truth seems to be that the consideration of the bill caused little attention in and out of Parliament, and the debates on it were languid.[176]

In May a knowledge of the passage of the Stamp Act reached Boston,[177] and it was to go into effect Nov. 1st. In June the Massachusetts legislature determined to invite a congress of all the colonies in October. In August it was known that Jared Ingersoll for Connecticut and Andrew Oliver for Boston had agreed to become distributors of the stamps. The mob hanged an effigy of Oliver on the tree afterwards known as Liberty Tree,[178] and other outrages followed. The governor did not dare to leave the castle. Dr. Mayhew delivered a sermon, vigorous and perhaps incendiary, as Hutchinson averred when he traced to it the passions of the mob which destroyed his own house in North Square on the evening of August 26th.[179] The town contented itself with passing a unanimous vote of condemnation the next day.[180] On Sept. 25th Bernard addressed the legislature in a tone that induced them to reply (Oct. 25th), and to fortify their position by resolves (Oct. 29th).[181] Finally, in December, Andrew Oliver,[182] the stamp distributor, was forced to resign, and on the 17th to sign an oath that he would in no way lend countenance to the tax.[183]

The spirit in Boston was but an index of the feelings throughout all the colonies.[184] The histories of the several States and the lives of their revolutionary actors make this clear.[185]

In October, 1765, what is known as the Stamp Act Congress assembled in New York, in the old City Hall.[186] Its proceedings are in print, and its deliberations are followed in the general histories and in the lives of its members.[187]

Franklin had, with considerable opposition, been appointed the London agent of Pennsylvania in 1764, and, being in that city, was accused by James Biddle of promoting the passage of the Stamp Act, but his letters show how he seems only to have yielded when he could not prevail in opposing.[188]

In July, 1765, the Rockingham administration came in, followed by the parliamentary sparring of Grenville and Pitt. In February, 1766, Dr. Franklin was examined before the House of Commons as to the temper of the colonies respecting the Stamp Act. He gave them some good advice,[189] and a full report of the questions and answers is preserved.[190] Parliament having passed the so-called Declaratory Act (March 7th) in vindication of its prerogatives, Pitt and Conway effected the repeal of the Stamp Act (March 18th), and vessels immediately sailed to carry the news to the colonies.[191] The whole question of taxation, thus brought squarely to an issue by the controversy over the Stamp Act, induced frequent rehearsals of argument in debates and pamphlet, and the later historians have summarized the opposing views.[192]

Josiah Tucker, the Dean of Gloucester, began in 1766 a series of tracts, which he continued for ten years, in which he advanced sentiments respecting the colonies, not very flattering, while at the same time he held to arguments which few at the time admitted the force of, when he advocated the peaceful separation of America from the crown.[193]

The most important presentation of the Tory insistence in defence of the Stamp Act policy came directly—or, at least, through his secretary, Charles Lloyd—from Grenville himself, in his attack on the Rockingham party, in the Conduct of the late Administration examined, with Documents.[194]

GEORGE THE THIRD.

Reproduction of a print in Entick's General Hist. of the Late War (3d ed., 1770), iv. frontispiece. A profile likeness, showing the king in armor, is in Murray's Impartial History of the present War in America, (London, 1778).

The movements for organization to suppress importation, which had begun in 1765, taking shape particularly in Philadelphia in Oct. and Nov.,[195] were brought into definite prominence by the votes of Boston, Oct. 28, 1767,[196] copies of which were circulated in broadside, as shown in the annexed fac-simile.[197] The influence of these had more marked effect in England than had followed any previous manifestations of that kind.[198]

HANDBILL

Copy of a broadside in the library of the Mass. Hist. Society.

Some other fac-similes are also given indicative of the prevailing coercive measures, which soon became popular. The next year (1768) committees were appointed in New York to consider the expediency of entering into measures to encourage industry and frugality and to employ the poor, and by 1769 the movement looking to independence of the British manufacturers became general through the colonies.[199]

FROM EDES AND GILL'S NORTH AMERICAN ALMANACK, 1770.

In February, 1768, the Massachusetts House of Representatives, by a circular letter addressed to the other colonies, invited them to consultation.[200] It drew from Hillsborough a circular letter of warning to the continent,[201] and in May Virginia issued a letter inviting a conference.[202] On June 10, 1768, the seizure of the sloop "Liberty" brought further riotous proceedings in its train.[203]

PROSCRIBING AN IMPORTER.

After an original handbill in the Mass. Hist. Soc. library.

What is known as the "War of the Regulators", or "Regulation", a series of riotous disturbances in North Carolina, 1768-1771, has usually been held to be one of the preliminary uprisings against British oppression. A. W. Waddell, in a paper in the N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg. (1871, p. 81), contends that it was nothing but a lawless outburst, and advances evidence to prove that the participants were but a small majority of the people, with no great principle in view; that they were ignorant, never republicans, became Tories, and were opposed by the prominent Whig leaders. He considers that Caruthers and other local historians[204] are responsible for the common misconception arising from their attempt to reflect credit on North Carolina for what is claimed to be an early patriotic fervor.

LANDING OF THE TROOPS IN BOSTON, 1768.

Fac-simile of an engraving by Paul Revere, which appeared in Edes and Gill's North American Almanack, Boston, 1770. It is reëngraved in S. G. Drake's Boston, p. 747, and in S. A. Drake's Old Landmarks of Boston, p. 119. Key: 1, The "Beaver", 14 guns; 2, "Senegal", 14; 3, "Martin", 10; 4, "Glasgow", 20; 5, "Mermaid", 28; 6, "Romney", 50; 7, "Launaston", 40; 8, "Bonetta", 10.

Revere also engraved a large copperplate of the same event, which is given in heliotype fac-simile, on different scales, in the Boston Evacuation Memorial (p. 18) and Mem. Hist. of Boston (ii. 532). Cf. also Gay's Pop. Hist. U. S., iii. 356; Dearborn's Boston Notions, 126, etc. The same view of the town was again used by Revere, but extended farther south, in a cut in the Royal American Mag. (1774), which is given in fac-simile in the Mem. Hist. of Boston, ii. 441. There is also a water-color mentioned in Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc., 2d ser., ii. 156. On Revere as an engraver, see W. S. Baker's American Engravers, Philad., 1875, and the list in N. E. Hist. and Gen. Reg., 1886, p. 204.

In Sept. (dated 14th) the selectmen of Boston sent a circular to the other towns, calling a convention (Boston Rec. Com. Rept., xvi. 263) to consider the declaration of Bernard "that one or more regiments may soon be expected in this province" (original broadside in Mass. Hist. Soc., Misc. MSS., 1632-1795). It is printed and explained in that society's Proceedings, iv. 387. The convention sat from Sept. 22d to 29th. On the 30th, in the early morning, the British fleet took soundings along the water-front, and in the afternoon a number of war-ships came up from the lower harbor and anchored with springs on their cables. On Oct. 1st the landing took place. The news spread through the land, and the irritation was increased. (Cf. Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc., xx. 9; Barry, Mass., ii. 370; Loring, Boston Orators, 75; Franklin's Works, vii. 418.)

The question of the expense of quartering troops had been raised by Massachusetts and New York in 1767 (Hutchinson, iii. 168), and a letter of Gage on the subject is in the Shelburne Papers, vol. li. (Hist. MSS. Com. Rept., v. 219). Cf. Hillsborough to Governor Franklin in N. J. Archives, x. p. 12. The message of the Assembly to Bernard, praying for their removal (May 31, 1769), is in Hutchinson (iii. App. 497).

A contemporary vindication of the movement, and of Herman Husband, the leader, bringing the history of the commotions down to 1769 only, evidently based on material furnished by Husband, was printed in Boston in 1771.[205] Husband himself seems, during the preceding year, to have printed anonymously, giving no place of publication, a narrative of his own, fortified by the letters of Tryon and others, with the remonstrances and counter-statements.[206]

This cut from Nathaniel Ames's Astronomical diary or Almanack, 1772, Boston, is inscribed "The Patriotic American Farmer, J-n D-k-ns-n, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, who with Attic Eloquence and Roman spirit hath asserted the liberties of the British Colonies in America." Cf. Scharf and Westcott's Philadelphia, i. 276.

C. W. Peale's portrait of Dickinson (1770) was engraved by I. B. Forrest. Cf. Catal. of Gallery of Penna. Hist. Soc. (1872), no. 161; Lossing's Field-Book, i. 476.

On Dickinson's influence, see "The great American essayist" in the Mag. of Amer. Hist., Feb., 1882, p. 117; Sept., 1883, p. 223; Read's Life of George Read, 49, 79; Wells's Adams, ii. 38; Quincy's Josiah Quincy, Jr., 104; Green's Hist. View, 370; Lossing's Field-Book, i. 476. Cf. letters of Dickinson in Mem. Hist. Boston, iii. 22; Lee's Life of A. Lee, ii. 293, 296, etc.

The most conspicuous presentation of the American side in 1768 were the famous Farmer's Letters, as they were usually called, of John Dickinson.[207]

Some of the most important of the documents of the Boston patriots were printed in London under the supervision of Thomas Hollis, long a devoted friend of the colonists.[208]

During 1768 and 1769 we find record of the workings of political sentiments in the colonies in abundant publications.[209]

The most important development in 1769 came from some letters which had been addressed by Governor Bernard and General Gage to the ministry, and to which, in the exercise of his rights as a member of Parliament, Alderman Beckford had obtained access and taken copies, subsequently delivered by him to Bollan, who transmitted them to Boston, where they were at once printed. From these letters the public learned of the urgency which the governor had used with the government to induce it to institute more stringent measures of repression.[210]

The publication of these letters led to the printing of An appeal to the world; or a vindication of the town of Boston, from many false and malicious aspersions contain'd in certain letters and memorials, written by Governor Bernard, General Gage [etc.]. Published by order of the town (Boston, 1769),[211] and induced also a letter to the Earl of Hillsborough.[212]

WILLIAM LIVINGSTON.

Fac-simile of the engraving in Sedgwick's Life of William Livingston. Cf. Lossing's Field-Book, i. 330.

There are in the Sparks MSS. (no. xx.) copies of annotations which Franklin, then in London, made on the margins and fly-leaves of sundry pamphlets, which just at this time were engaging attention in London, and these comments show how the struggle was regarded by a mind of Franklin's astuteness, amid the influences of the British capital. Sparks printed parts of these annotations in his Familiar letters and miscellaneous pieces by Dr. Franklin, and again in his edition of Franklin, vol. iv.[213] Some letters which passed between Franklin and William Strahan in 1769 are also of great interest.[214]

The Boston Massacre of March, 1770, was the violent culmination of prevailing passions, and was in a measure induced by the sacrifice of life which resulted from the boarding by a press-gang from the "Rose" frigate of a ship belonging to Hooper, of Marblehead,[215] and by the riotous proceedings which, in Jan., 1770, brought about the death of the boy Snider.[216] Soon after the affray of March, the town of Boston published a Short Narrative of the Horrid Massacre in Boston (Boston, Edes and Gill, 1770),[217] which depicted the condition of the people at the time, and gave an appendix of depositions, including one of Jeremy Belknap.[218] Copies were sent to England at once,[219] but the rest of the edition was kept back till after the trial, when "Additional Observations" were appended.[220] The volume, thus completed, was reprinted in New York in 1849, with notes and illustrations by John Daggett, Jr.; and again in Frederick Kidder's History of the Boston Massacre (Albany, 1870), which is the most considerable monograph on the subject.[221]

FROM BICKERSTAFF'S BOSTON ALMANAC, 1769.

This song was written by John Dickinson, with some assistance from Dr. Arthur Lee, and was sent (printed in the Penna. Chronicle, July 4, 1768) by Dickinson from Philadelphia to Otis, accompanied by a letter dated July 4, 1768. It was sung to the tune "Hearts of Oak", and was made conspicuous in Boston by being sung at Liberty Hall and the Greyhound Tavern in Aug., 1768. It had been reprinted in the Boston Gazette, July 18th. An amended copy, "the first being rather too bold", was given in the Penna. Chronicle July 11th. In September it appeared as a broadside, with the music. Edes and Gill's Almanac, in reprinting it in 1770, says it is "now much in vogue in North America." (Cf. Tudor's Life of Otis, pp. 322, 501; Moore's Songs and Ballads of the Rev., p. 37; Drake's Town of Roxbury, p. 166; Mem. Hist. of Boston, iii. p. 131.)

A parody appeared in the Boston Gazette, Sept. 26, 1768 (Moore, p. 41). This parody gave rise to the "Massachusetts Song of Liberty", which is given in Edes and Gill's Almanac (1770), as well as in Bickerstaff, under the full title of The Parody parodized, or the Massachusetts Liberty Song. It has been ascribed to Mrs. Mercy Warren. (Cf. Moore, p. 44; Lossing, Field-Book of the Rev., i. 487.) The Almanac (Edes and Gill) of 1770 also contains "A new Song composed by a Son of Liberty and sung by Mr. Flagg at Concert Hall, Boston, Feb. 13, 1770."

A stenographic report was made of the trial of Preston, and sent to England, but it has never been published.[222]

The trial of eight of the soldiers took place Nov. 27, 1770, and John Hodgson,[223] the stenographer of the earlier trial, made a Report, The trial of William Wemms, ... published by permission of the Court (Boston, 1770),[224] which gives the evidence and pleas of counsel, and a report of the trial of Edward Manwaring and others, accused of firing on the crowd from the windows of the custom-house. They were acquitted.[225]

FROM BICKERSTAFF'S BOSTON ALMANAC, 1770.

PART OF INSTRUCTIONS TO BOSTON REPRESENTATIVES, MAY 15, 1770.

The original draft of these instructions, in the handwriting of Josiah Quincy, Jr., is among the Quincy MSS. in the cabinet of the Mass. Hist. Society. This is a reproduction of the last page, showing the signatures of Richard Dana and of Cooper, the town clerk.

The principal statement on the government side was A Fair Account of the late unhappy disturbance at Boston, extracted from the depositions that have been made concerning it by persons of all parties, with an appendix containing affidavits and evidences not mentioned in the narrative that has been published at Boston (London, 1770).[226] This Fair Account contained a deposition of Secretary Andrew Oliver, tending to show that the soldiers were justifiably defending themselves; and making public the doings of the governor's council thereupon. This "breach of a most essential privilege" excited animadversion, and the council censured Oliver.[227] The purport of the English presentations is to show that the soldiers did not fire till duly provoked by assaults, and the more candid American writers, like Ramsay, Abiel Holmes, Hildreth, and others, seem to allow this.[228]

Bancroft (orig. ed., vi. 347) has a long note on the evidence about the provocation and first assault. He gives ten reasons for thinking Preston gave orders to fire, and six reasons for thinking the provocation was not sufficient to justify the firing. The evidence in this form is omitted in the final revision of Bancroft.

The anniversary of the Massacre was observed in Boston till the struggle for Independence was passed, and a series of annual orations commemorates the continued and aroused feelings of the people.[229]

The appendix to the third volume of Hutchinson's History records the sparring of Hutchinson and the legislature during the next six months.[230]

The list of Haven in Thomas (ii. 606) gives the American tracts published in 1770; but the more significant ones of the year appeared in London.[231]

The year 1771 was less eventful. In England, it seemed for a while as if the worst had passed. W. S. Johnson had written at the close of the preceding year (Dec. 29, 1770), "The general American controversy is at present looked upon here as very much at an end."[232] Franklin had been made the agent for Massachusetts;[233] he was still putting tersely to his correspondents the American view of the controversy,[234] and he had a conference with Hillsborough.[235]

Hutchinson in March had succeeded to the governor's chair, with reluctance, as he professed.[236] The American tracts may be gleaned in Haven's list.[237]

The events of 1772 are of more interest. The Boston patriots emphasized their arguments in their instructions to their representatives in May.[238] Later (July 14th) they passed a remonstrance against taxation and sent it to the king.[239]

Note.—The annexed cut is part of a handbill in the library of the Mass. Hist. Society.

There are diverse views as to the originator of the committees of correspondence. Gordon's opinion (i. 312) that James Warren was the instigator was adopted by Marshall, but is held by Bancroft (vi. 428) to be erroneous. John Adams gave the first movement to Samuel Adams.[240] One of the first-fruits of the committee, as a provincial measure, was the report drafted by Samuel Adams (Nov. 2, 1772), which was printed as the Rights of the Colonies.[241] The vote passed by Virginia, March 12, 1773, was the immediate cause of intercolonial activity.[242]

The seizure and destruction of the revenue vessel Gaspee in Narragansett Bay, June 10, 1772, is considered by Rhode Island writers as the earliest aggressive conduct of the patriots. John Russell Bartlett,[243] in the R. I. Colonial Records (vol. vii. pp. 57-192), gathers all the documentary evidence, and this was in 1861 published separately as A History of the Destruction of his Britannic Majesty's Schooner Gaspee ... accompanied by the Correspondence connected therewith; the action of the General Assembly of Rhode Island thereon, and the official journal of the ... Commission of Inquiry appointed by King George III.[244]

Early in 1773 the patriots of Boston produced what is called "the most elaborate state paper of the Revolutionary contest in Massachusetts." This is the reply of the House of Representatives to the governor in the contest then waging with him.[245]

The act which included the duty on tea had passed Parliament June 29, 1767, and in March, 1770, it had been repealed, except, in order to maintain the theoretical right of Parliament to tax, the tax on tea had been retained in force. Pownall[246] had exerted his utmost to make the repeal include tea. The test was deferred till it was announced[247] that the East India Company was assisted by government in sending over a surplus of tea which they had. A series of impassioned gatherings in Boston, and demonstrations not so boisterous in the other colonies, led to the destruction of the tea in Boston harbor, and elsewhere resulted in the transshipment of the tea whence it came.[248]

A BOSTON WARNING.

After an original in the Mass. Hist. Society.

A PHILADELPHIA POSTER.

After an original in the library of the Pennsylvania Hist. Society.

Another significant event of 1773 was the episode of the Hutchinson letters. They had been written (1767-1769), from Boston, to Thomas Whately, and came, after the latter's death (June, 1772), by some unknown means, into Franklin's hands. When Cushing[249] and the patriots printed them,—for the rumor of their existence led the "people abroad" to compel their publication,[250]—Franklin made no complaint, and bore with reserve the defamation which was visited upon him in England, and which is still repeated by later English writers,[251] Franklin finally prepared a statement in vindication, but it was not published till Temple Franklin printed his edition of Franklin's Works.[252] The letters were printed without any indication of Franklin's connection with them; but when a duel grew out of the publication, in which a brother of Whately was wounded by Mr. Temple,[253] who had been accused of purloining the letters, Dr. Franklin, to prevent a further meeting, published a note in the Public Advertiser, acknowledging his agency.[254] Sparks appends a note in his edition,[255] in which he refutes the claim of Dr. Hosack (Biographical Memoir of Dr. Hugh Williamson, 1820) that Williamson had been the medium of transmitting the letters.[256]

Mr. R. C. Winthrop, in discussing the question,[257] introduces a paper of George Bancroft, "Whence came the papers sent by Franklin to Cushing in his letter of Dec. 2, 1772?" Bancroft's conclusion is that Whately sent the letters to Grenville (who died Nov. 13, 1770), and they were found among his papers, and through some agency or consent of Temple passed into Franklin's hand.[258]

QUINCY'S DEDICATION.

This is the original draft of the dedication to Quincy's tract on the Port Bill, the MS. of which is among the Quincy MSS. in the cabinet of the Mass. Hist. Society. Its full title is Observations on the act of parliament commonly called the Boston port-bill; with thoughts on civil society and standing armies (Boston, 1774; Philad., 1774; London, 1774. It is reprinted in the Life of Josiah Quincy, Jr. Cf. Sabin, xvi. 67,192, etc.)

The letters, when laid before the Massachusetts Legislature, produced some resolutions (June 25, 1773),[259] followed by a petition to the king,[260] asking that Hutchinson and Oliver might be removed from office. This led to the presence of Franklin before the Privy Council, and the attack on Franklin's character by Wedderburn.[261]

THE QUINCY MANSION.

After a water-color painted by Miss Eliza Susan Quincy in 1822. The house was built in 1770, by the father of the patriot, Josiah Quincy, Jr. The original sketch is among the Quincy MSS. in the Mass. Hist. Soc. cabinet. Cf. cut in Appleton's Journal, xiv. 161. Of Josiah Quincy, Jr., there was an engraving made in his lifetime, which was held to be a good likeness, and from this, and with the family's assistance, Stuart, fifty years after Quincy's death, painted the picture which is engraved in the Mem. Hist. Boston, iii. 37.

HEADING OF A HANDBILL

Fac-simile of the top portion of an original broadside in Mass. Hist. Society's library. The bills were that for the impartial administration of justice, and that for better regulating the government of the province of Massachusetts Bay.

The earliest significant movement in 1774 was the impeachment of Peter Oliver, chief justice, and younger brother of the late lieutenant-governor, for receiving his salary from the crown,—the controversy respecting the governor and other officers being thus made independent of the people, having been one which had been active for two years past.[262]

Gen. Gage had landed in Boston May 17th, to put in force, June 1st, what is known as the Boston Port Bill (approved March 31, 1774), or An Act to discontinue, in such manner, and for such time as are therein mentioned, the landing and discharging, lading or shipping, of goods, wares, and merchandise, at the town, and within the harbour of Boston, in the province of Massachuset's Bay, in North America.[263]

While Salem and Marblehead were thus made chief ports of entry, the commerce of Boston was suddenly checked, and the town was forced to a dependence for succor upon other towns and other colonies.[264]

The effect of the measures on the other colonies was instant and widespread.[265]

One of the immediate results in Massachusetts because of these oppressive acts was a retaliatory "Solemn League and Covenant" agreed upon in the provincial assembly,—a combination made more or less effectual by the active agency of Boston and Worcester in issuing broadsides against the use of imported British goods.[266]

In July, 1774, close upon his arrival in London, Hutchinson held an interview with the king, and set forth his opinions of the condition of affairs in the colonies.[267]

In August, 1774, Gage received the two acts mentioned in the annexed fac-simile of a handbill.[268]

It is claimed by Dawson[269] that the movements of 1774 in New York Were precipitated by the merchants and their adherents, "aristocratic smugglers", who formally organized themselves in May, 1774; and it was on the 6th of July that Alexander Hamilton made his stirring appeal at "the great meeting in the fields."[270] Further south a similar spirit prevailed.[271]

HANDBILL.

Fac-simile of an original in the library of the Mass. Hist. Society, where is another, dated Sept. 2, 1774, quoting this, and including an address by Gen. Brattle to the public, deprecating the current belief that his action in writing that letter was inimical to the cause. Cf. H. Stevens's Catal. (1870), no. 261. See on this mater John Andrews's diary in Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc., viii. 351, 354.

The question of originating the Congress of 1774 is one upon which there has been some controversy. It seems evident that the first proposal for a congress for general purposes was in a vote of Providence, R. I., May 17, 1774.[272] Cushing of Massachusetts and Dr. Franklin appear to have exchanged views on the subject in 1773.[273] Hancock seems to have suggested a congress in March, 1774.[274] In May the Sons of Liberty in New York formally proposed a Congress.[275] A resolution of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, June 17th, looked towards one, and similar action took place in the House of Burgesses in Virginia.[276]

The Congress opened with a concession of the New England members, when Samuel Adams proposed the Episcopalian Duché for chaplain.[277] John Adams tells how the scheme of the Congress struck him,[278] and we learn from him something of the appearance and bearing of an assembly, where the "Tories were neither few nor feeble", and the political feelings were far from being in unison. "One third Whigs, another Tories, the rest mongrel", he says.[279] Franklin thought that only unanimity and firmness could conduce to any good effect from it.[280]

For the local feeling in Philadelphia and among the members assembled there at the time, see John Adams's diary, Ward's diary,[281] and Christopher Marshall's diary.

The original edition of the Journal of the Proceedings of the Congress held in Philadelphia, Sept. 5, 1774 (Philad., 1774), bore the earliest device of the colonies, twelve hands grasping a column based on Magna Charta, surmounted by a liberty cap with the motto Hanc tuemur.[282]

What we know of the debates, apart from the proceedings, is chiefly derived from some brief notes by John Adams.[283]

The Congress put forth a Declaration of Rights, and a draft of it is preserved in a hand thought to be that of Major Sullivan, of New Hampshire. Wells (Sam. Adams, ii. 234) thinks that Samuel Adams had a hand in it, as it resembles the pamphlet issued by the Boston Committee of Correspondence in 1772. The original draft of it, with the final form, is given in the Works of John Adams,[284] who claimed the authorship of article iv.

The petition of Congress to the king was drafted by John Dickinson.[285] It was signed in duplicate, and both copies were successively sent to Franklin, one of which is in the Public Record Office, and the other, retained by Franklin, is among the Franklin MSS. in the library of the Department of State at Washington.[286]

The petition to the king was first printed in London by Becket in Authentic Papers from America, submitted to the dispassionate consideration of the public (London, 1775). This produced a card (Jan. 17, 1775) from Bollan, Franklin, and Arthur Lee, calling the copy of the petition "surreptitious as well as materially and grossly erroneous" (Sparks Catal., p. 84).

It is sometimes said that R. H. Lee, and sometimes that John Jay, wrote the "Address to the People of Great Britain" which the Congress adopted.[287] They also passed a "Memorial to the inhabitants of the colonies."[288]

On the 9th of September the people of Boston and the neighborhood met outside the limits of the town, and passed a paper, drawn up by Joseph Warren, more extreme and less dignified than was demanded, known as the "Suffolk Resolves",[289] and this was transmitted to the Congress, where, when the Resolves were read, as John Adams says, there were tears in the Quaker eyes. Jones[290] says that the loyalists had joined the Congress to help in claiming redress for grievances, but that the approval of these Resolves rendered their continuance with the Congress in its measures impossible. Hutchinson[291] says that when the Resolves were known in England, they were more alarming than anything which had yet been done.[292]

On Sept. 28th Joseph Galloway introduced his plan of adjustment, calling for a grand council to act in conjunction with Parliament in regulating the affairs of the colonies. The scheme was finally rejected by a vote of six colonies to five, after having allured many of the leading men to its support.[293]

The Congress, Oct. 20th, adopted the Articles of Association, pledging in due time the country to non-importation, non-exportation, and non-consumption, so as to sever completely all commercial relations with England.[294]

In the summer of 1774 the British Parliament had, after some opposition, passed what is known as the "Quebec Bill", restoring the old French law in the civil courts of Quebec, securing rights to the Catholic inhabitants, and extending the limits of that province south of Lake Erie as far as the Ohio.[295]

CONGRESS OF 1774.

The debates[296] in Parliament caused much diversity of opinion, and gave rise to a number of pamphlets.[297] The Congress of 1774 sought to counteract this action by an address to the inhabitants of Quebec, which was distributed both in English and French.[298]

Pownall in London told Hutchinson that every step of the Congress was known to the ministry.[299] We know that Dartmouth, probably through Galloway, received accounts of the temper of the delegates,[300] and that Joseph Reed was in communication with Dartmouth at the time.[301]

The revolutionary measures advocated by the Congress were far from receiving general acceptance,[302] and in New York they elicited some sharp and vigorous controversial pamphlets.[303] It was the general opinion at the time that Samuel Seabury was the author of two of the ablest of these tracts, though the claims for their authorship are now divided between Seabury and Isaac Wilkins, while each may have assisted the other in a joint production[304] which rendered at this time the name of a "Westchester Farmer" famous.[305]

JOSIAH QUINCY'S DIARY.

This is reproduced from a page of the diary of Josiah Quincy, Jr., which was kept while he was in London in 1774. It is the beginning of his description of an interview with Lord North. The original diary is among the Quincy MSS. in the cabinet of the Mass. Hist. Society. Quincy had sailed from Salem Sept. 28, 1774, and was not averse to having the Tories think that he was going for his health; but Gage seemed to have had a suspicion that about this time somebody was going over with bad designs (P. O. Hutchinson, 296). We learn from the same source (p. 301) that North thought his interviewer was "a bad, insidious man, designing to be artful without abilities to conceal his design",—a view that Hutchinson no doubt had helped the minister to form. With Quincy's spirit, we can imagine how North's warning that there must be submission before reconciliation would be taken. There was some suspicion also that Quincy was making observations upon Franklin to discern how far that busy genius could be trusted. Franklin seems to have satisfied him, and on his homeward voyage Quincy dictated to a sailor the report to the patriots that he had every reason to fear he would not live to deliver in person, as indeed he did not. It is preserved, and printed in his Life, where will be found his journal kept in London. Joseph Reed's letters to him, while in London, are in The Life of Joseph Reed, i. 85, etc. Quincy made out lists in London of the friends and foes of America among the merchants. Cf. letter of William Lee, April 6, 1775, in Sparks MSS., xlix. vol. ii.

Another leading Tory writer at this time was Dr. Myles Cooper, the president of King's College, who was as sharply assailed for his Friendly Address[306] as the "Westchester Farmer" was.

Something of an official character belongs to A true state of the proceedings in the Parliament of Great Britain, and in ... Massachusetts Bay, relative to the giving and granting the money of the people of that province, and of all America, in the House of Commons, in which they are not represented (London, 1774), for Franklin is said to have furnished the material for it, and Arthur Lee to have drafted it.[307]

One of the most significant of the American tracts of 1774 was John Dickinson's Essay on the constitutional power of Great Britain over the colonies in America.[308]

The journals of the provincial congress of Massachusetts (1774-1775) are in the Mass. Archives (vol. cxl.), and have been printed as Journal of each Provincial Congress of Mass. 1774-75, and of the Com. of Safety, with an Appendix (Boston, 1838). The proceedings of the session of Nov. 10, 1774, were circulated in a broadside.

In England we have the debates of Parliament, such correspondence as is preserved, and the records of passing feeling, to help us understand the condition of public opinion.[309]

The Assembly of New York met in January, 1775. Dawson contends that the usual view of the loyal element controlling its action is not sustained by the facts, and that in reality neither patriot nor Tory was satisfied with its action.[310]

The feeling in Virginia is depicted in Giradin's continuation of Burk's Virginia (which was written under the cognizance of Jefferson), in Rives's Madison, and in Wirt's Patrick Henry.[311]

LORD NORTH.

From Murray's Impartial History of the Present War, i. 96. Cf. London Mag. (1779, p. 435) for another contemporary engraving.

The Congress of 1775 met in Philadelphia, May 10th. Quebec had been invited to send delegates.[312] Lieut.-Gov. Colden kept the majority of the New York Assembly from sending delegates.[313] John Hancock was chosen president, May 24th.[314]

The proceedings are given in the Journals of Congress.[315]

Perhaps the best expression of argumentative force on both sides was reached in the controversy waged by John Adams against Jonathan Sewall, as he always supposed, but in reality against Daniel Leonard, of Taunton, as it has since been made evident.[316]

CHATHAM.

From the title of Bickerstaff's Boston Almanac for 1772,—the common popular picture of him. Cf. the head in Gentleman's Mag., March, 1770.

In 1768, Edmund Jennings of Virginia, being in London, and seeking, probably unsuccessfully, to get a portrait of Camden for some "gentlemen of Westmoreland County" who had subscribed for that purpose, contented himself with commissioning young "Peele, of Maryland", then in London, to make a picture of Chatham, following "an admirable bust by Wilton, much like him, though different from the common prints." Jennings presented it to R. H. Lee in a letter dated Nov. 15, 1768, and the Virginia Gazette of April 20, 1769, says it had just arrived. The picture was placed in Stratford Hall, Lee's house, but was transferred to the Court-House of Westmoreland in 1825, or thereabouts. In 1847 it was transferred to the State of Virginia, and placed in the chamber of the House of Delegates in Richmond, where it now is. It represents Chatham "in consular habit, speaking in defence of American liberty." Cf. Va. Hist. Reg., i. p. 68; Richmond Despatch, Sept. 26, 1886. There is an engraving of Hoare's portrait of Chatham, representing him sitting and holding a paper, given in fac-simile in Mag. of Amer. Hist., Feb., 1887. On the statue of Pitt at Charleston, S. C., see Mag. of Amer. History, viii. 214. For medals, see account by W. S. Appleton in Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc., xi. 299. D'Auberteuil, in his Essais, ii. 93, gives a curious picture of Pitt in Parliament on crutches, with more gout in his features than in his legs. Cf. Doyle's Official Baronage, i. 359.

One of the most powerful pleas for conciliation was made in Richard Price's Observations on the nature of civil liberty ... and the justice and policy of the war with America (London, 1776, in six editions, at least; Boston, 1776, etc.).[317]

DR. PRICE.

From the London Magazine, May, 1776 (p. 227). "Published by R. Baldwin, June 1, 1776."

For the mutations and progress of opinion in England at this time we may follow Bancroft (orig. ed., vol. viii.) and Smyth (Lectures, nos. 31-33), and the latter compares the expressions of this progress as recorded in Ramsay and the Annual Register.[318]

For the aspects of political leadership in Parliament during 1775-76, and the struggles in debates, see the Parliamentary History and the Amer. Archives,[319] and we may offset among the general histories the Tory sympathies of Adolphus (England, ii. ch. 24) with the liberal tendencies of Massey (Hist. of England), but the lives of the principal leaders bring us a little nearer to the spirits of the hour.[320]

During 1775 Franklin in London was maintaining his correspondence with his American friends,[321] and conferring with Chatham upon plans of conciliation,[322] and discussing the ways of compromise with Lord and Lady Howe.[323]

CHAPTER II.

THE CONFLICT PRECIPITATED.

BY JUSTIN WINSOR,

The Editor.

"YOU must be firm, resolute, and cautious; but discover no marks of timidity", wrote one from London to James Bowdoin, February 20, 1774.[324] Firm, resolute, cautious, but bold! This was the impelling spirit of the hour. Hutchinson was at the same time writing to Dartmouth that anarchy was likely to increase, till point after point was carried, and every tie of allegiance was severed.[325] Indications were increasing that the conflict of argument and the burst of political passion were before long to give way to the trial of force, and to the inevitable severing of friends which a resort to arms would entail. All this was prefigured on the first of June, 1774, when Hutchinson, bearing with him the addresses of his admirers,[326] left his house on Milton Hill forever, and walked along the road, bidding his neighbors good-bye at their gates; when, as he approached Dorchester Neck, he got into his carriage, which had followed him, and was driven to the point, where he took boat, was conveyed to a frigate, and in a short time was passing out by Boston light, leaving behind the line of ships at their moorings, which, with shotted guns, marked the beginning of the Boston blockade. That severing of friends and that threat of war was at that moment, away off in Virginia, accompanied by the tolling of bells out of sympathy for Boston. The Massachusetts yeomanry had not yet openly seized the musket, but their tribune, Sam. Adams, a few days later, turned the key upon the governor's secretary in Salem, when that officer was sent to dissolve the assembly. It was then that Adams and his associates proceeded to pass votes, with no intention of submitting them to the executive approval,—the beginning of the end, which we have seen Hutchinson but a few months before had anticipated. Between the upper and the nether mill-stone, between the patriots of Massachusetts and the Tories of Parliament, the charter of William and Mary was rapidly crushed. Parliament determined that all power should come from them, and the province leaders determined otherwise. So the distribution of authority provided under the charter ceased. The rival powers in and around Boston could not long abstain from force. Each watched the other, in the hopes of a pretext to be beforehand, without being the aggressor.

On the first of July, 1774, when Hutchinson, in London, was convincing the king that the ministry's aggressive measure was going to bring the recalcitrant Bostonians to terms, Admiral Graves, in his flag-ship, was entering Boston harbor, and new regiments soon followed in their transports. Presently one could count thirty ships of war at their moorings before the town, and the morning drum-beats summoned to the roll-call strong garrisons at Castle William, in Boston itself, and at Salem, now the capital. It was known that arms were stopped, if any one tried to carry them from Boston; and it soon became evident to Gage that it was best to concentrate his force, for he removed his headquarters from Danvers[327] to Boston, and thither his two regiments followed him. Perhaps he had heard of the enthusiasm of a certain young officer, whom he had seen twenty years before, saving all that was saved, on Braddock's bloody day; and how, surviving for the present crisis, he had just declared, in distant Virginia, that he was ready to raise, subsist, and march a thousand men to Boston. Gage must have known George Washington quite as well as the Bostonians did, who were, it is to be feared, better prepared on their part to look upon Israel Putnam, as he marched into town from Connecticut with a drove of sheep for the hungered populace, as a greater hero than the Virginian colonel.

September came in, and it did not look as if the conflict could be put off longer.[328] On the first of that month Gage sent a detachment to the Powder House beyond Quarry Hill, in the present Somerville, and it brought away ammunition and cannon and took them to the castle.

NOTICE OF THE COMMITTEE OF CORRESPONDENCE.

From an original in the volume of Proclamations, etc., in the library of the Mass. Hist. Society.

News of the inroad spread, and on the next day crowds gathered in Cambridge with arms in their hands. They assembled before Lieutenant-Governor Oliver's house[329] and forced him to resign. Joseph Warren, in Boston, heard of the tumult and hastened to the spot. His influence prevailed, and the sun went down without the shedding of blood. It was ominous, however, to Gage, and he set to work rebuilding the old lines across Boston Neck, and constructing barracks. He soon encountered difficulties. Somehow laborers could not be hired, nor provisions be bought. Somehow his freight-barges sunk, his carts of straw got on fire, his wagons were sloughed; and somehow, with all his vigilance, a few young men made up for the loss of the powder-house pieces by stealthily carrying off by night some cannon from Boston,[330] besides some others from an old battery in Charlestown. It was soon found that the men on the Neck lines needed protection, and Admiral Graves tried to send up a sloop of war into the South bay to enfilade the road from Roxbury, if occasion came; but her draught was too much, and so he employed an armed schooner. By November the works were finished. Warren thought them as formidable as Gage could make them, but the old Louisbourg soldiers laughed at them and called them mud walls.

Meanwhile, in October, the military spirit was taking shape throughout the province. On the 5th the legislative assembly, which had met at Salem on Gage's call, though he sought to outlaw them by rescinding (September 28) his precept, had declared his attempted revocation without warrant in law, and had resolved itself into a provincial congress. The body then adjourned to meet in Concord, where, under John Hancock's presidency, they appointed a Committee of Safety to act as the executive of the province, and chose three general officers,—Preble,[331] Ward, and Pomeroy. The militia was organized, and minute-men were everywhere forming into companies. Gordon tells how the country was astir with preparations. Connecticut was not far behind in ordering her militia to be officered, and in directing her towns to double their stock of ammunition, while she voted to issue £15,000 in paper money,—the first of the war.

"An armed truce", wrote Benjamin Church, "is the sole tenure by which the inhabitants of Boston possess life, liberty, and property." Away from Boston, the towns made common cause. "Liberty and Union" was to be read on a flag flying in Taunton. When news of these and similar events reached England, Lord North told Hutchinson that, for aught he could see, it must come to violence, with consequent subjection for the province.[332] When such tidings reached Virginia it found her officers just sheathing their swords after their conflict with the Indians in the mountains, and resolving next to turn their weapons against the oppressors of America. Gage, in Boston, whom Warren really felt to be honest and desirous of an accommodation, was awaking to a juster measure of the task of the ministry, which might, he said, require 20,000 troops to begin with. As he pondered on such views, he might have heard, on the evening of the 9th of November, 1774, the ringing of the bells which greeted the return of Sam. Adams and his colleagues from the Philadelphia congress. Shortly after the middle of the month the British in Boston went into winter quarters.[333] So November passed;—the Committee of Safety had arranged to raise and support an army, and the recommendation of the Continental Congress had been approved.

December came. Boston was not yet burned, as some in London believed it was when Quincy heard them laying wagers in the coffee-houses,[334] and if Sam. Adams was not the first politician in the world, as others told the same ardent young Bostonian, he was sharing conspicuous honors at home, with his distant kinsman, John Adams. The latter, as Novanglus, in his public controversy with the unknown Massachusettensis, was just attracting renewed attention. But that sturdy patriot, while he was arguing in public, was comforting himself in private by reckoning that Massachusetts could put 25,000 men in the field in a week; and New England, he counted, had 200,000 fighting men, "not exact soldiers", he confessed, "but all used to arms."[335] Tidings were coming in which told how this warlike spirit might be tested. Governor Wanton, of Rhode Island, had spirited away from the reach of the British naval officers forty-four cannon, which were at Newport. Paul Revere had gone down to Portsmouth and harangued the Sons of Liberty, till they invaded Fort William and Mary and (December 14, 1774) carried off the powder and cannon.[336] From Maryland, where they had lately been burning a tea-ship,[337] the word was that its convention had ordered the militia to be enrolled. From Pennsylvania it appeared that Thomas Mifflin was conspicuous among the Quakers in advocating the measure of non-intercourse. From South Carolina the news was halting. Could her rice-planters succeed in getting their product excepted from such a plan? They did. Gage had some time before[338] written to Dartmouth that they were as mad in the southern Charlestown as in northern Boston; and when one of their Tory parsons had intimated that clowns should not meddle with politics, they had been as fiery as they could have been in Massachusetts.[339] Gordon, of Jamaica Plain, in appending notes to a sermon which he had just preached on the Provincial Thanksgiving of December 15, 1774, refers to the brave lead of Virginia in the present time, as nine years before she had been foremost in the stamp-act time.[340] Governor Dunmore was reporting to Dartmouth (December, 1774) that every county in Virginia was arming a company of men, to be ready as occasion required.

John Adams, at Philadelphia, read to Patrick Henry from a paper of Joseph Hawley, that the result of the action of the ministry rendered it necessary to fight. "I am of that man's opinion", replied the ardent Virginian.[341] With the new year (1775) that opinion was becoming widespread. Ames' Almanac (1775), published in Boston, was printing, for almost every family in New England to read, "a method for making gunpowder", so that every person "may easily supply himself with a sufficiency of that commodity." Day by day news came to Boston from every direction of the indorsement of Congress, and of the wild-fire speed of the dispersion of the military spirit. Those who remembered the 40,000 men who marched towards Boston at the time of the D'Anville scare, thirty years before, said the enthusiasm then was nothing like the present. Somehow Gage began to feel more confident. He had in January 3,500 men in his Boston garrison, and almost as many more were expected, and he did not hesitate to send (January 23) Captain Balfour and a hundred men, with two cannon, to Marshfield, to protect the two hundred loyalists there, who had signed the articles by which Timothy Ruggles was hoping to band the friends of government together, and the reports which Balfour sent back seemed to satisfy the governor that the measure was effective.[342]

On the first of February, 1775, the second provincial congress assembled at Cambridge, and they soon issued a solemn address to the people, deprecating a rupture, but counselling preparations for it.[343] It was not then known that Gage had won over Dr. Church, and that through this professing patriot the British headquarters in Boston were informed of the doings of congress. Church's defection encouraged the tories, and on the 6th, handbills appeared in Boston, reminding the patriots of the fate of Wat Tyler.[344] A few days later Cambridge was alarmed by the report that troops were coming out of Boston to disperse them; but the day passed without the proof of it. The Committee of Safety were anxious, for they knew that the other colonies and their friends in England were fearful that the conflict would be precipitated without the consent of congress; and the authority of congress was now so dominant that its cognizance of such measures was essential to the continuance of the sympathy with Massachusetts which now existed. No one at this time was more solicitous for this prudent measure than Joseph Hawley, and no one in Massachusetts had a steadier head. On the 18th Peter Oliver wrote from Boston to London: "Great preparations on both sides for an engagement, and the sooner it comes the better."[345] "Every day, every hour widens the breach!" wrote Warren to Arthur Lee, two days later.[346] Already the provincial congress had conferred on the Committee of Safety (February 9) the power to assemble the militia, and John Thomas and William Heath had been added to the general officers. The committee, on the 21st, had voted to buy supplies for 15,000 men, including twenty hogsheads of rum. On the same day Sam. Adams and Warren signed a letter to the friends of liberty in Canada, and secret messengers were already passing that way. Presently, on the 26th, the impending conflict was once more averted.

Colonel David Mason, of Salem, had been commissioned by the Committee of Safety as an engineer, and was now at work in that town mounting some old cannon which had been taken from the French. Gage heard of it, and by his orders a transport appeared at Marblehead, with about 300 men under Lieutenant-Colonel Leslie, who rapidly landed and marched his men to Salem. Their purpose was seasonably divined; the town was aroused, and, in the presence of a mob, the commander thought it safer to turn upon his steps.[347] A British officer, Colonel Smith, with one John Howe, was at about the same time sent out in disguise to scour the country towards Worcester, and pick up news for Gage;[348] and two others, Brown and Bernière, were a few weeks later prowling about Concord.[349] The patriots did not scour for news. It came in like the wind,—now of county meetings, now of drills, now of Colonel Washington's ardor in Virginia, and now of Judge Drayton's charge to the grand jury in Carolina.

ROADS OF ROXBURY AND BEYOND.

Sketched from a MS. map in the library of Congress, which is apparently one of the maps made by Gage's secret parties of observation.

Early in March came the anniversary of the Boston massacre. Two days before, Judge Auchmuty, in Boston, wrote to Hutchinson: "I don't see any reason to expect peace and order until the fatal experiment of arms is tried.... Bloodshed and desolation seem inevitable."[350] While this tory was writing thus, the patriots, in a spirit that somewhat belied their professed wish to avoid a conflict, were arranging for a public commemoration of the massacre. It could have been omitted without any detriment to the cause, and to observe it could easily have begotten trouble amid the inflamed passions of both sides. "We may possibly be attacked in our trenches", said Sam. Adams. It little conduced to peace that Joseph Warren was selected to deliver the address, which, as the fifth came on Sunday, was delivered on Monday, the sixth. The concourse of people suggested to Warren to enter the Old South meeting-house, where the crowd was assembled, by a ladder put against a window in the rear of the pulpit. Forty British officers were present, and the moderator offered them front seats, and some of the officers placed themselves on the pulpit stairs. A contemporary story says that it was a set purpose of the officers to break up the meeting,[351] and that one of them took an egg in his pocket, to be thrown at the speaker for a signal. This man tripped as he entered the building, and the egg was broken before its time. Another officer, below the desk, held up some bullets in his open palm as Warren warmed in his eloquence. The speaker quietly dropped his handkerchief on the leaden menace, and went on. So the meeting came to an end, with no outbreak; though there was some hissing and pounding of canes when the vote of thanks was put. As the crowd came out of the meeting-house there was an apprehensive moment,[352] for the Forty-third Regiment chanced to be passing, with beating drums, and for an instant the outcome was uncertain.[353] Gage had suffered the commemoration to pass without recognition, but ten days later his officers made the event the subject of a provoking burlesque, when Dr. Thomas Bolton delivered from the balcony of the British Coffee House in King Street a mock oration in ridicule of Warren, Hancock, and Adams.[354] There was no knowing what purpose this ridicule might mask; and a committee of the patriots, mostly mechanics, were constantly following the progress of events, meeting secretly at the Green Dragon[355] for consultation, and setting watches at Charlestown, Cambridge, and Roxbury, to give warning if there were any signs that the royal troops were preparing to move from the town.

On the 22d March, 1775, the provincial congress assembled again at Concord, and set to work in organizing their army, and in devising an address to the Mohawks, with the purpose of securing them to the patriot side. They also prepared to use the Stockbridge Indians as mediators with their neighbors, who were already tampered with, as was believed or alleged, by emissaries from Canada. It was already known that the people of the New Hampshire Grants were preparing to seize Ticonderoga as soon as the war-cloud should burst.

BETWEEN BOSTON AND MARLBOROUGH.

Sketched from a MS. map in the library of Congress, which is seemingly the original or copy of the map made by one of Gage's secret parties sent to observe the country.

News sped rapidly by relays of riders. It was not long after Patrick Henry had said in Virginia, "We must fight; an appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left for us",[356] before the words were familiar in Massachusetts, and John Adams, who knew, said that Virginia was planting wheat instead of tobacco. At Providence they were burning tea in the streets, and men went about erasing the advertisements of the obnoxious herb from the shop-windows. Everywhere they were quoting the incendiary speech of John Wilkes, the lord mayor of London, whose retorts upon the ministry were relished as they were read in the public prints. As if to test whether March should pass without bloodshed,[357] Gage on the 30th sent Earl Percy out of town with a brigade, in light marching order, and he went four miles, to Jamaica Plain, and returned. The minute-men gathered in the neighboring towns, but no encounter took place.[358]

So April came, with the rattle of the musket still unheard. On the second day two vessels arrived at Marblehead, bringing tidings that Parliament had pledged its support to the king and his ministers, and that more troops were coming. On the 8th a committee reported to the provincial congress on an armed alliance of the New England colonies, and messengers were sent to the adjacent governments.[359] Connecticut responded with equipping six regiments; New Hampshire organized her forces as a part "of the New England army", and Rhode Island voted to equip fifteen hundred men. In Virginia it looked for a while as if the appeal to arms would not be long delayed, for Dunmore fulminated against their convention; and he even threatened to turn the slaves against their masters, and he did seize the powder at Williamsburg, of which the province had small store at best. Calmer counsels prevailed, and the armed men who had gathered at Fredericksburg dispersed to reassemble at call.

The contest meanwhile had been precipitated in Massachusetts. The rumor had already gone to England that it was close at hand. Hutchinson, in London, on the 10th, when writing to his son in Boston, had said: "Before this reaches you it will be determined;" and while tidings of the actual conflict was on the way, Hutchinson learned in London that Pownall had been prepared by letters from Boston for something startling.[360] The circle of sympathizers with America were in this suspense while Franklin was on the ocean, hither bound, and, if we may believe Strahan, he had left England in a rancorous state of mind, causing men to wonder what he intended on arriving, whether to turn general and fight, or to bolster in other ways the spirits of the rebels.[361] When he arrived the fight had begun.

On the 15th of April the provincial congress had adjourned. On the 16th, Isaiah Thomas spirited his press out of Boston and took it to Worcester, where, in a little more than a fortnight, the Massachusetts Spy reappeared.[362] Families, impressed with the forebodings of the sky, were moving out of town. Samuel Adams and Hancock had been persuaded to retire to Lexington,[363] to be beyond the grasp of Gage, who was shortly expected to order the arrest of the patriots, for which he had had instructions since March 18th.[364] The Boston committee of observation was watchful. It had noticed that on the 14th the "Somerset" frigate had changed her moorings to a position intermediate between Boston and Charlestown, and on the 15th the transports were hauled near the men-of-war. Notice of these signs was sent to Hancock and Adams, and preparations were begun for removing a part of the stores at Concord. When, during the afternoon of the 18th, some of the precious cannon were trundled into Groton, her minute-men gathered for a night march to Concord. During that same day Gage sent out from Boston some officers to patrol the roads towards Concord, and intercept the patriot messengers, and to discover, if possible, the lurking-place of Adams and Hancock. In the evening it was observed in Boston that troops were marching across the Common to the inner bay. William Dawes was at once dispatched to Concord by way of Roxbury, for the patriot watch had not been without information before the troops actually moved. Gordon tells us that they got a warning from a "daughter of liberty unequally yoked in point of politics", and as Gage's wife was a daughter of Peter Kemble, of New Jersey, it has been surmised that the informer may have been one very near to headquarters.[365] Paul Revere immediately caused the preconcerted signal-light to be set in a church-tower at the north end of Boston, and crossing the river in a boat, he mounted a horse on the Charlestown side and started on his famous midnight ride. It was none too soon. At eleven o'clock eight hundred men, under Lieutenant-Colonel Smith, were passing over the back bay in boats to Lechmere Point. Here they landed at half past two in the morning, and the moon at this hour was well up. They marched quietly and rapidly, but not unobserved, and when they approached Lexington Green they found drawn up there a company of minute-men. Smith had become alarmed when, as he was advancing, he found the country aroused in every direction, and sent back for reinforcements. Earl Percy, with the succor, was by some stupidity[366] delayed, and did not get off from Boston till between nine and ten the next morning, and he then took the circuitous route by Roxbury and Cambridge.

The critical moment on Lexington Green had then long passed. Major Pitcairn, who commanded Smith's advance-guard, would not or could not prevent that fatal volley in the early morning light, by which several of the small body of provincials were killed before they broke, while, by a scattering return fire, one or two of the British were wounded.[367] Smith, without being aware that Hancock and Adams were at the moment within sound of his musketry, and just then being conducted farther from his reach, waited while his troops gave three cheers, and then resumed his march, passing on towards Concord. The provincials gathered their dead and wounded, and managed as the British passed on to pick up a few stragglers, the first prisoners of the war.[368]

On the redcoats went as the day broadened.[369] They followed the road much as it runs to-day, though in places steeps and impediments are now avoided by a better grade. Their march went by the spots which the genius of Hawthorne and Emerson have converted into shrines. In the centre of Concord they halted, while the gathering provincials, who had retired before them, watched the smoke of devastation. Smith had detailed two detachments to find and destroy stores. One of these, sent to Colonel Barrett's, beyond the North Bridge, had some success, and while it was absent the provincials, now increased in numbers from the neighboring towns, approached a guard which had been left at the bridge. Here the British fired at the Americans across the stream, and the volley being returned, a few were killed on both sides, before the British guard retreated upon the main body, whither they were soon followed by the other detachment which was out. Smith took two hours to gather wagons for his wounded and make preparations for his retreat, which had now become imperative, for the militia were seen swarming on the hills.[370] When Smith started he threw out a flanking party on his left, which followed a ridge running parallel to his march; but when the sloping of the land compelled the flankers to descend to the level of the road, the British lost the advantage which the ridge gave them, and the minute-men, who now began to strike the British line of march at every angle, waylaid them at cross-roads, and dropped an incessant fire upon them from copse, hill, and stone wall, until the retreating troops, impeded with their wounded, and leaving many of their dying and dead, huddled along the road like sheep beset by dogs. Just on the easterly outskirts of Lexington they met Percy, whose ranks opened and received the fugitives; and Stedman, the British historian who was with Percy, tells us how the weary men hung out their tongues as they cumbered the ground during their halt. It was near two o'clock, and Percy planted his cannon to keep his assailants at bay, while his troops, now about eighteen hundred in number, rested and refreshed themselves. Before this, his baggage train, which had been delayed in crossing the bridge from Brighton to Cambridge so as to fall far behind his hastening column, had been captured, with its guard, by a crowd of old men some distance below, at Menotomy.[371] When Percy limbered his pieces and his troops fell again into column, the hovering militia renewed the assault. As pursuer and pursued crossed West Cambridge plain the action was sharp. Percy did not dare attempt to turn towards the boats which Smith had left at Lechmere Point, and any intention he may have had of halting at Cambridge and fortifying was long vanished. So he pursued the road which led towards Charlestown Neck. Several hundred militiamen, who had come up from Essex County,[372] were nearly in time at Winter Hill to cut the British off in their precipitate retreat, and "God knows", said Washington, when he learned the facts, "it could not have been more so." Percy, however, slipped by, and as darkness was coming on, the fire of the pursuers began to slacken as they approached Bunker Hill. Here, with the royal ships covering their flanks, the British halted, and, facing about, formed a line and prepared to make a stand. General Heath, who during the latter part of the day had been on the ground, drew off his militia, and at the foot of Prospect Hill held the first council of war of the now actual hostilities. Warren, early in the day hastening from Boston across the river, had galloped towards the scene of conflict. When he encountered Percy's column on its way out, he seems to have evaded it and joined General Heath, then taking cross-roads to intercept the pursuing militia. Heath took the command of the provincials soon after Percy resumed his march. From this time Warren, as chairman of the committee in Boston, kept near Heath, for counsel if need be, and Heath says that on the West Cambridge plain a musket-ball struck a pin from Warren's earlock.

No one could tell what would happen next, after this suddenly improvised army had begun to rendezvous that night in Cambridge. As the straggling parties, in bivouac and in what shelter they could find, compared experiences and counted the missing, messengers were hurrying in every direction with the tidings of the war at last begun![373]

On the 20th of April there was much to do beside picking up the dead that may have been left over night along the road from Concord. The Committee of Safety[374] were summoning all the towns to send their armed men to Cambridge.[375] Warren was writing to Gage to beg better facilities for getting the women and children, with family effects, out of Boston.[376] These were busy days for that ardent patriot. The militia were beginning to pour in, and Warren must do the chief work in reducing the mob to order. Congress comes to Watertown, and Warren, in the absence of Hancock, must preside. He bids God-speed to Samuel Adams and John Hancock[377] as they start for the Continental Congress. He hears with a sinking heart of the vessel which arrived at Gloucester on the 26th, bringing the body of Josiah Quincy, so lately warm that, when the tidings reached Cambridge of his death, Warren supposed he had lived to get ashore.[378]

HEATH'S ACCOUNT OF THE FIGHT AT MENOTOMY.

From a slip of paper in the Heath Papers, vol. i. no. 71.

After a copperplate in An Impartial Hist. of the War in America, Boston, 1784, vol. iii. The background is much the same as that of a portrait of Washington in the same work, and the print, issued in Boston, where Heath was well known, shows what kind of effigies then passed current. A portrait of Heath by H. Williams has been engraved by J. R. Smith. (Catal. Cab. Mass. Hist. Soc., p. 46.) There is extant a likeness owned by Mrs. Gardner Brewer, of Boston. Cf. Mem. Hist. of Boston, iii. 183. Heath was born in Roxbury, March 2, 1737, and died Jan. 24, 1814. His service was constant during the war, though his deeds were not brilliant. He seems conspicuously to have acquired the regard of Washington; though Bancroft calls him vain, honest, and incompetent. His papers are in the Mass. Hist. Soc. Cabinet.

Another day Warren is busy carrying out the behests of the Committee of Safety respecting their scant artillery. At another time he is encouraging wagoners to go into Boston to bring out the friends of the cause and their property; but it was not so easy to get Gage's permission, and as the tories made a plea that these Boston patriots were necessary hostages, obstacles were thrown in the way.[379] There were rumors, too, of an intention of the royal troops once more to raid upon the country. Only two days after the 19th of April, Ipswich was wild with such rumors, and the alarm spread to the New Hampshire line[380] and beyond.[381]

The patriots at Cambridge were not pleased when they found that the Connecticut assembly had sent a committee to bear a letter from Governor Trumbull (April 28) and to confer with Gage.[382] There was a feeling that the time had passed for such things, and Warren wrote (May 2) a letter beseeching the sister colony to stand by Massachusetts, which elicited from Trumbull a response sufficiently assuring.[383]

Already there was a proposition warlike enough from a Connecticut captain who had just led his company to Cambridge, and was now urging the seizure of Ticonderoga and its stores. The proposition was timely. During the previous winter the patriots had learned that the British government was intending to separate the colonies by securing the line of the Hudson.[384] Accordingly the instigator of this counter-movement was ordered, May 3d, to carry it out, and Benedict Arnold makes his first appearance in American history. Meanwhile, however, acting upon hints which Arnold had already dropped before leaving Connecticut, or perhaps anticipating such hints, some gentlemen in that colony, joining with others of Pittsfield, in Massachusetts, had gone to Bennington, where, on the day before Arnold was commissioned, they had been joined by Col. Ethan Allen. Thus the plan which Arnold had at heart was likely to be carried out before he could arrive from Cambridge. A few days later the command of the force which had gathered naturally fell to Allen as having the largest personal following, and this following was loyal enough to their leader to threaten to abandon the enterprise if Arnold, who arrived very soon, should press his rights to the command. By a sort of compromise, Allen and Arnold now shared amicably the leadership. Less than a hundred men had reached the neighborhood of the fort on the morning of May 10, when, in the early dawn, the two leaders, overpowering the sentinels at the sally-port, reached the parade-ground with their men, and forced an immediate surrender from the commandant, still in his night-clothes. Fifty men and nearly two hundred cannon, and many military stores, were thus promptly and easily secured. More than a hundred other pieces were added, when, on the 12th, Colonel Seth Warner,[385] with a coöperating detachment, seized the post at Crown Point, and shortly afterwards Bernard Romans took possession of Fort George.[386]

RUINS OF TICONDEROGA, 1818.

From a plate in the Analectic Magazine (Philadelphia, 1818). Cf. views in Lossing's Field-Book, and Harper's Monthly (vii. p. 170); Von Hellwald's America, pp. 134, 135.

On the 14th some of Arnold's belated men reached him with a captured schooner, which Arnold immediately put to use in conveying a force by which he surprised the fort at St. John's, on the Sorel, and then returned to Ticonderoga.[387]

Meanwhile the provincials had begun to use the spade in Cambridge, and here and there a breastwork appeared.[388] On the 5th of May the provincial congress pronounced Gage "an unnatural and inveterate enemy",[389] and issued a precept for a new congress to convene.

ROXBURY LINES.

Follows a contemporary pen-and-ink sketch, showing the American lines as seen from the British lines on Boston Neck. The original is in the library of Congress.

The military anxiety was increasing. Thomas had but 700 men at Roxbury, which he tried to magnify in the British eyes by marching them in and out of sight, so as to make the same men serve the appearance of many more. On the 8th of May there was an alarm that the royal troops were coming out, and the militia of the near towns were summoned.[390] To put on an air of confidence, a few days later (May 13), Putnam, from Cambridge, marched with 2,200 men into Charlestown and out again, without being molested, though part of the time within range of the enemy's guns. It was the military assertion of the idea, which the day before the Watertown congress had expressed, of governing themselves. "It is astonishing how they have duped the whole continent", wrote Gage to Dartmouth,[391] and perhaps he had not heard even then of the last victory of opinion down in Georgia, where parishes of New England descent were forcing issues with their neighbors.

The Committee of Safety now resolved to remove the live-stock from the islands in Boston Harbor; and Gage, on his part, determined on securing some hay on Grape Island, near Weymouth. These counter-forays led to fighting, and for some weeks the harbor was alive with skirmishing.[392] Meanwhile the Massachusetts congress had urged Connecticut to let Arnold bring some of the cannon captured on Lake Champlain to Cambridge,[393] and the day before the brush occurred at Grape Island they had delivered (May 20) a commission as commander-in-chief of the Massachusetts troops to Artemas Ward. In Boston the remaining loyalists were soon cheered by advices promising large reinforcements, which they now confidently began to expect,[394] and the feeling grew apace among the beleaguerers that a better organization and a closer dependence of the colonies among themselves were necessary to meet the impending dangers. Dr. Langdon, the president of Harvard College, in the election sermon[395] on the day when the new provincial congress met (May 31), had recognized the general obedience which was already paid to the advice of the Continental Congress. There were not a few who remembered how, twenty years before, the young Virginian, Colonel George Washington, had come to Boston, and who recalled the good impression he had made. They had heard lately of the active interest and sympathy with the patriots' cause which he was manifesting among his neighbors in that colony. On the 4th of May, Elbridge Gerry, with the approval of Warren, wrote to the Massachusetts delegates at Philadelphia, that they would "rejoice to see this way the beloved Colonel Washington" as generalissimo.[396] This was the feeling, while the army which lay about Boston was a mere inchoate mass, far from equal to the task which they had undertaken; but brave words did much; brave spirits did more; and John Adams was writing from Philadelphia that one "would burst to see whole companies of armed Quakers in that city, in uniforms, going through the manual."[397] The tories in Boston looked on with mingled fear and confidence. "We are daily threatened", wrote Chief-justice Oliver from Boston (June 10), "with an attack by fire-rafts, whale-boats, and what not."[398]

WARREN'S LAST NOTE.

The original is among the Heath Papers (Mass. Hist. Soc.), and is given in fac-simile in Frothingham's Warren, p. 506; and reduced (as above) in G. A. Coolidge's Brochure of Bunker Hill, p. 34.

One of the new British generals now lent his literary skill to his commanding general, for Burgoyne was a playwright and had an easy way of vaporing, which was quite apparent in Gage's proclamation of June 12,[399] to warn the rebellious and infatuated multitudes, and to hold out forgiveness to all but Samuel Adams and John Hancock.[400] The provincial congress, through Warren, prepared a counter-manifesto, but events were rushing too speedily to leave time for its publication. On the very day of issuing his proclamation Gage wrote to Dartmouth that he was intending to attack the rebels, "which every day becomes more necessary."[401]

NOTICE TO THE MILITIA.

After an original in the volume of Proclamations in the library of the Mass. Hist. Society.

On the 14th Warren was made the second major-general of the Massachusetts forces, and his active spirit gave encouragement, since the inalertness of Ward was creating much concern. Early in the morning of the 17th Warren left Watertown, and the provincial congress convened without him, but they knew the emergency. A broadside exists of this day, in which they call upon the neighboring militia to hold themselves in readiness. In the anxious hours of this, St. Botolph's day,[402] with all eyes on Boston, the Continental Congress had chosen Washington to be their military chief,[403] and had adopted the forces which were about to show that Boston was not besieged idly. It took time then for Cambridge to know what was happening in Philadelphia; but the assembled legislators at Watertown might well hope for what had really happened, when, as the fateful day wore on, messengers arrived, declaring that the Continental funds were to be used to help supply this beggared army, and that all the aspirations of its provincial congress to set up a civil government of their own had met the approval of the continent.[404]

Now to look at the military situation. Already John Thomas, a physician of Kingston, had been made second in command under Ward; and Richard Gridley, an old Louisbourg artilleryman, had been made chief engineer. As yet the New England colonies were the only ones which had sent their armed men to the scene. The Massachusetts men had taken post mostly at Cambridge, near the college; and here, as the days went on, came also a Connecticut regiment under Israel Putnam, who had left his plough in its furrow. So, as June began, there had assembled on this side of Boston between seven and eight thousand men, eager, but poorly equipped, and with a small supply of powder. On the Roxbury side, fronting the British lines on Boston Neck, there were about four thousand Massachusetts men, under John Thomas, supported by a camp a little farther out, at Jamaica Plain, to which Joseph Spencer had come with another Connecticut regiment, and Nathanael Greene, with a body of Rhode Islanders. Thomas had some field-pieces and a few heavy cannon, and his force constituted the army's right wing. Its left wing was upon the Mystick at Medford, and near Charlestown Neck, and here were the New Hampshire men, and among their officers the old Indian fighter, John Stark, was conspicuous. Three companies of Massachusetts men constituted the extreme left at Chelsea. So, as the summer came on, perhaps about 16,000 men in all were encamped as a fragile army besieging Boston. General Ward exercised by sufferance a superior authority over all, though as yet no colony but New Hampshire had instructed its troops to yield him obedience. As Massachusetts claimed three quarters of the entire force thus drawn together, the assumption of chief command by her first officer was natural enough in a common cause.

The force which this sixteen thousand loosely organized men dared to hold imprisoned in Boston was a well-compacted army of somewhere from five to ten thousand men, for it is difficult amid conflicting reports to determine confidently a fixed number. On the 25th of May Gage had been joined by a reinforcement, accompanied by three other general officers,—Burgoyne, Clinton, and Howe.

The council of war at Cambridge was meanwhile directing new works to be constructed, strengthening and stretching their lines of circumvallation. Its opinions were divided on the question of occupying so exposed a position as the most prominent eminence on the peninsula of Charlestown, the defence of which might bring on a general engagement, which their stock of powder could not support. On the 13th of June the American commanders had secretly learned that Gage intended on the 18th to take possession of Dorchester Heights, the present South Boston. There was but one counter-move to make, and that was to seize in anticipation the summit of the ridgy height which began at Charlestown Neck and extended, in varying outline, to the seaward end of the peninsula,—an eminence known as Bunker Hill. On the 16th of June, a council of war, held in the house near Cambridge common, known then as the Hastings and later as the Holmes House,[405] decided, upon the recommendation of the Committee of Safety, to occupy Bunker Hill at once.

ORDER OF THE COMMITTEE OF SAFETY.

This has before appeared in G. A. Coolidge's Brochure of Bunker Hill, 1875.

That evening about 1,200 men, of whom 200 were from Connecticut under Thomas Knowlton, the whole being under the command of Colonel William Prescott, first listened to a prayer of the president of the college, and then marched, with their intrenching tools, in the darkness, to Charlestown Neck.

Here the purpose was for the first time disclosed to the men. They resumed their march, going up the slope of the hill before them, while Nutting's company and a few Connecticut men were sent along the shore opposite Boston, to patrol it. The highest summit of the hill was the one first reached; but, after a consultation, it was decided to proceed to a lower one, more nearly before Boston. Here Richard Gridley marked out a redoubt, and at midnight the men took their spades and began to throw up the breastworks. Putnam, who seems to have accompanied Prescott, now returned to Cambridge, and while the men worked busily, Prescott sent an additional patrol to the river, and twice went down himself, to be satisfied, as he heard the "All's well" of the watch on the men-of-war moored opposite, that no noise of the intrenching tools had reached the enemy. Soon after the first glimmer of dawn on the 17th, the sailors on the ships discovered the embankments, now about six feet high, when one of the vessels, the "Lively", at once opened fire upon them. This lasted only till Admiral Graves could send orders to cease, but was shortly renewed from the ships and from the batteries on Copp's Hill, in Boston, as soon as the British generals comprehended the situation. Prescott's men meanwhile kept at their work. One man was soon killed by a cannon-ball. The commander and others walked the parapet, encouraging their men, and Willard, one of the councillors who stood by Gage as they surveyed the hill through their glasses, recognized the Pepperell colonel, and told the British general what sort of man he had got to encounter. A promise had been given to Prescott that in the morning a relief and refreshments would be sent from Cambridge; but nothing came to the hungry men, as they still worked. Ward, who heard the firing, yielded to Putnam's persuasion to send reinforcement, only so far as to despatch a part of Stark's regiment, for he feared that Gage would seem to prepare to assault in Charlestown, while his intention might be to attack in Cambridge. Finally, about ten o'clock, Major John Brooks[406] reached headquarters with a request from Prescott for help and food. Richard Devens pressed Ward to comply, and at eleven the rest of the New Hampshire men were ordered to march.

Meanwhile, as the tide rose, some floating batteries were sent up the stream to take the works in flank, and later, to rake the Neck. A few stray shots were returned from a single field-piece in the redoubt, one of whose balls passed over Burgoyne's head, as he tells us, while he was watching at Copp's Hill. Putnam came again from Cambridge, and induced Prescott to send off a large number of his men with the intrenching tools, and under Putnam's direction this detail soon began to use them in throwing up earthworks on the higher summit in the rear,—labor wasted, as it turned out.

As the day wore on, Gage held a council of war, and it was determined not to land troops at the Neck and attack in rear, as Clinton urged, but to assault in front. This decision was long the ground of severe criticism upon Gage, and ruined his military reputation. The ships were put into better positions, and redoubled their fire. By noon the British troops in Boston were marching to the wharves, where they embarked in boats, and, under the command of General Howe, they rowed to Moulton's or Morton's Point, where the landing was quickly made.[407] Howe drew up his men on the rising ground which makes the least of the three heights of the peninsula, and anticipating sharp work, sent back the boats for more men.

Prescott observed all this from the hill, but looked longingly up the peninsula for his own reinforcements. A few wagons came, not with men, but with beer, though nothing adequate even of this. The feeling began to spread among the men on the hill that they had been treacherously left to their fate; but they got encouragement from a few brave souls who came straggling in from Cambridge. Pomeroy, the French war veteran, was one. James Otis, wreck as he was, came.[408] So did Warren, whose presence the men recognized by a cheer, and, major-general as he was, he came to fight under Colonel Prescott. Putnam, too, had again returned, and was seen riding about the field in a restless way, with a word of encouragement here and there, and pointing out to a few reinforcements now arriving where best to go.

Prescott's eye, observing Howe's dispositions, saw he was aiming to advance along the Mystick and take the redoubt in reverse. So Knowlton, with two field-pieces and the Connecticut troops, were sent down the hill towards the Mystick, where they began to make a line of defence of a low stone wall, which was topped by a two-rail fence. Stark and Reed, with the New Hampshire regiments, diminished somewhat by details which Putnam had taken from them to help the work in the trenches on the higher hill, soon came up and ranged their men in a line with Knowlton. There was, however, an interval between this part of the field and the breastwork and redoubt, which offered a chance for the enemy to intervene and break the line. An attempt was made to prepare for such a contingency by grouping the few guns which they had at this point. New troops, in small numbers, continued to come up, and they were placed in position as best they could be to keep the line strong in all parts as it sloped away from the crowning redoubt towards either river.

It was nearing three o'clock when the British boats returned from Boston; and when their troops landed Howe had about 3,000 men in array. He pushed his guns forward and got them in position to play upon the American field-pieces, and soon drove them away, while at the same time some skirmishing took place on the British flanks, whose main body was now advancing in a measured step in two columns: one led by Howe against the rail-fence, the other by Pigot against the redoubt. The assault was become one of infantry only, for the British guns were soon mired in some soft ground, and the balls in reserve had proved of an over-calibre.[409] Pigot's front got near the redoubt before the Americans poured in their fire, which was deadly enough to send the staggered column wildly back. At the same time, along the Mystick Howe's advance was met by the American field-pieces, some of which had been drawn to the rail-fence. Their musketry fire was reserved, as at the redoubt, and when it belched upon the deployed enemy it produced the same effect. So there was a recoil all along the British line. In the respite before they advanced again, Putnam tried to rally some troops in the rear, and to get others across the Neck, which the raking fire of the British vessels was now keeping pretty clear of passers.[410] But there was not time to do much, for Howe was soon again advancing, his artillery helping him more this time; and to add to the terror of the scene, he had sent word to Boston to set Charlestown on fire by shells, and the conflagration had now begun.[411] The smoke did not conceal the British advance,[412] and Prescott and Stark kept their men quiet till the enemy were near enough to make every shot tell. The result was as during the first attack. The royal troops struggled bravely; but all along the line they wavered, and then retreated more precipitately than before.

There was a longer interval before Howe again advanced, and Prescott used it in making such a disposition of his men as would be best in a hand-to-hand fight, for neither adequate reinforcements nor supplies had reached him, and his powder was nearly gone. There was a good deal of confusion and uncertainty in the rear, all along the road to Cambridge. Ward had ordered a plenty of troops forward, but few reached the peninsula at all, or in any shape for service. Putnam did what he could to bring order out of confusion; but his restless and brandishing method, and his eagerness to finish the works on Bunker Hill, were not conducive to such results as a quiet energy best produces. The brave men at the front must still do the work left for them, with such chance assistance as came.

Howe was rallying his men for a third assault. Major Small had landed 400 marines, to make up in part for the losses. Clinton had seen how confused the troops were as he looked across the river with his glass, and had hurried over from Boston to render Howe help as a volunteer aid. The British general determined now to concentrate his attack upon the works on the crown of the hill, making only a demonstration against the rail-fence. He brought his artillery to bear in a way that scoured the breastwork which flanked the redoubt, and then he attacked. His column reserved their fire and relied on the bayonet. They met the American fire bravely, but soon perceived that it slackened; and surmising that the American powder was failing, they took new courage. Those of the defenders who had ammunition mowed down the assailants as they mounted the breastworks, Major Pitcairn among them;[413] but as soon as Prescott saw the defence was hopeless, he ordered a retreat, and friend and foe mingled together as they surged out of the sally-port amid the clouds of dust which the trampling raised, for a scorching sun had baked the new-turned soil. It was now, while the confused mass of beings rocked along down the rear slope of the hill, that Warren fell, shot through the head. No one among the Americans knew certainly that he was dead, as they left him. The British stopped to form and deliver fire, and there was thus time for a gap to open between the pursuers and the pursued. The New Hampshire men and others at the rail-fence, seeing that the redoubt was lost, tenaciously faced the enemy long enough to prevent Prescott's men from being cut off, and then stubbornly fell back. Some fresh troops which had come up endeavored to check the British as they reached the slope which led to the intrenchments that Putnam had been so solicitous about; but the British wave had now acquired an impulse which carried it bravely up the hill; and Putnam, skirring about, was not able to make anybody stand to defend the unfinished works. So down the westerly slope of the higher summit to the Neck the provincials fled, and the British followed. The vessels poured in their fire anew as the huddled runaways crossed the low land, and not till they got beyond the Neck was there any effectual movement by fresh troops to cover the retreat. General Howe fired a few cannon shot after them, as he mustered his forces on the hill. It was now about five o'clock. There was time in the long summer's day to advance upon Cambridge, but Howe rejected Clinton's advice to that end, and began, with other troops which had been sent to him from Boston, to throw up breastworks on the inland crown of Bunker Hill. Thus spading for their defence, the British passed the night, while the Americans lay on their arms on Winter and Prospect hills, or straggled back to Cambridge. There was no disposition on either side to renew the fight.

Prescott did not conceal his indignation at not having been better supported, when he made his report at Ward's headquarters. He knew he had fought well; but neither he nor his contemporaries understood at the time how a physical defeat might be a moral victory. Not knowing this, there was little else than mortification over the result,—indeed, on both sides. A wild daring had brought the battle on, and something like bravado had led the British general into a foolhardy direct assault, while more skilful plans, availing of their ships, might have accomplished more without the heavy loss which they had endured.[414] The British folly was increased by the way in which they allowed the provincials to make the first great fight of the war a political force throughout the continent.

TRYON'S SEAL AND AUTOGRAPH.

From a plate in Valentine's N. Y. City Manual, 1851, p. 420.

The general opinion seems to be that the Americans had about 1,500 men engaged at one time, and that from three to four thousand at different times took some part in it.[415] The British had probably about the same numbers in all, but were in excess of the Americans at all times while engaged.[416] The conflict with small arms lasted about ninety minutes.

On the morning of the 18th of June (Sunday) the British renewed the cannonading along their lines, as if to cover some movement, but nothing came of it, and each side used the shovel busily on the intrenchments. A shower in the afternoon stopped the firing.

There was a dilemma in New York a few days later. Governor Tryon, who had been in England, was already in the harbor ready to land on his return, and Washington was approaching through Jersey on his way to Boston. It was determined by the city authorities to address and extend courtesies to both. The American general chanced to be ahead, and got the parade and fair words first. Tryon disembarked a few hours later, and received the same tributes.[417]

It was Sunday, June 25, when Washington reached New York. He found the town excited over the recent battle, the news of which he had met a few hours out of Philadelphia.[418]

WASHINGTON'S HEADS OF LETTER, JULY 10, 1775.

This is about half of the whole as given in fac-simile in Wilkinson's Memoirs, i. p. 855. The original is now among the Reed-Washington letters in the Carter-Brown library. It was the basis of Washington's first formal official letter to the president of Congress, which, as written out by Joseph Reed, is given in Sparks' Washington, iii. p. 17. It shows the degree of attention which the general bestowed on his minutes for his secretary's use.

Washington, on his first arrival, had taken temporary quarters in the house of the president of the college, known now as the Wadsworth house (Mem. Hist. Boston, iii. 107; Gay's Pop. Hist. U. S., iii. 408), till the finest house in the town, one of a succession of mansions on the road to Watertown, was made ready for his use. These houses, which had all been deserted by their Tory owners, gave the name of Tory Row to this part of Cambridge. The one assigned to Washington's use was a Vassall house, later, however, known as the Craigie house, when it became the property of Andrew Craigie, from whose family it passed to the ownership of Longfellow, who died in it. Sparks lived in it when he edited Washington's Writings. It is familiar in engravings. Cf. Mem. Hist. Boston, iii. p. 113, with a note on various views of it; and for its associations, see Samuel Longfellow's Life of H. W. Longfellow; Irving's Washington, ii. p. 11; Greene's Hist. View of the Amer. Rev., p. 220; Manhattan Mag., i. 119; Mrs. Lamb's Homes of America; Gay's Pop. Hist. U. S., iii. 415. Among the other buildings of Revolutionary associations still standing in Cambridge are the Brattle house, the headquarters of Mifflin; the Vassall house, where Dr. Church was confined; the house where Jonathan Sewall lived, later occupied by General Riedesel; the Oliver house, now owned by James Russell Lowell; the "Bishop's Palace", where Burgoyne was quartered; and Christ Church, where Washington attended service (view in Mass. Mag., 1792, and compare Nicholas Hoppin's discourses, Nov. 22, 1857, and Oct. 15, 1861). For more of the historical associations of these Cambridge sites, see the Harvard Book; Drake's Landmarks of Middlesex; the Cambridge Centennial Memorial (1875); William J. Stillman's Poetic Localities of Cambridge (Boston, 1876); T.C. Amory's Old and New Cambridge; an illustrated paper in Harper's Monthly, Jan., 1876, another by Alexander Mackenzie, in the Atlantic Monthly, July, 1875; Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc., June, 1858, and Sept., 1872; and the book edited by Arthur Gilman, Theatrum Majorum, The Cambridge of 1776, which has an eclectic diary (by Mary W. Greely) of the siege, purporting to be that of one Dorothy Dudley.

Among the letters now passing through New York was one upon that battle, addressed to the President of Congress, which Washington took the liberty of opening for his own guidance. After instructing Schuyler, who was to be left in charge of the forces in New York, to keep watch upon Tryon[419] and Guy Johnson,[420] Washington the next day (26th) started for Cambridge. On the 2d of July Washington reached Watertown, and on the 3d, under a tree still standing,[421] he took command of the army, which thus passed, in effect, under Continental control, numbering at the time nearly 15,000 men fit for duty.[422] To brigade this army, rectify the circumvallating lines, watch the constant skirmishes, and assign the new bodies of troops arriving to places in the works, was the labor to which Washington devoted himself at once. On the 9th of July he held his first council of war,[423] and on the 10th he addressed his first letter to Congress, describing the condition of the siege as he had found it.

To guard against surprise, and replenish the magazines, required constant diligence, and the supply of powder never ceased to be a cause of anxiety in the one camp, while the diminishing stock of provisions produced almost as much concern in Boston. The beleaguered British, however, got some relief from the exodus of the Boston people, which the stress of want forced the royal commander to permit.[424] So the summer was made up of anxious moments. The independent husbandmen of New England made but intractable raw recruits, and Washington, who had expected to find discipline equal to that which the social distinctions of the South gave to the masses there, was disappointed, and did not wholly conceal his disgust.[425] He grew, however, to discern that campaigns could produce that discipline as well, if not better, than a life of civil subservience. Recruits came in from the South, and when some of the Northern officers saw the kind of men that Morgan and others brought as riflemen from Virginia, their comment was scarcely less austere. "The army would be as well off without them", said Thomas, who, next to Washington, was the best disciplinarian in the camp. Of the generals, Lee was, however, by much the most conspicuous. There was a glamour about the current rumors of his soldierly experience that obscured what might have been told of his questionable character.[426] His eccentricities were the camp talk, and rather served to magnify his presence, while it proved dangerous to perambulate the lines with him and his crowd of dogs, since the exhibition tempted the enemy to drop their shells in that spot.[427] Early in July a trumpeter approached the American lines bringing a letter from General Burgoyne to General Lee, and the camp straightway proceeded to invest the strange general with political importance. Burgoyne and Lee were old campaigners together, and Lee, before he left Philadelphia, had written a stirring letter to the British general on the bad prospects of the ministerial policy. The letter which now came was a reply, and proposed a conference on Boston Neck, to which Congress advised Lee not to accede, and the momentary ripple subsided.[428]

In August there was some correspondence with Gage respecting the treatment of prisoners, in which Washington appears to the better advantage.[429] The correspondence of the American general during the summer constantly dwells upon the scarcity of powder, though for prudence' sake he veils his expressions as much as he can. His own troops and even Congress had no conception of his want, and while Washington hardly dared fire a salute because of the powder it would take, Richard Henry Lee, from Philadelphia, was urging him to plant batteries at the mouth of Boston harbor, and keep the enemy's vessels from coming in and going out.[430] Governor Cooke, of Rhode Island, who was doing his best to get powder from Bermuda, was compelled to keep the secret too. Apparently Washington did not let his brigade commanders know the whole truth.[431] Under these circumstances Washington had no courage to attack, and Gage, on his part, was content to keep his men from deserting as best he could.

During September the threatening manœuvres of the British cruisers along the Connecticut coast[432] kept Governor Trumbull from sending what powder he had, and there was little hope, when Washington called a council of war on the 11th, that anything would come of it. There had been just then some internal manifestations not very reassuring.[433] A letter which Dr. Benjamin Church had tried to get to the British in Newport harbor had been intercepted, and its cypher interpreted. There was no expressed defection made clear by it, but suspicions were aroused, and Church, being arrested, was summoned before the congress at Watertown, where he made a speech protesting his innocence, but scarcely quieting the suspicions. He was put under control, and removed from the neighborhood of the army.[434]

There was scarce less gratification in the camp at Cambridge in getting rid of their doubtful associate than was experienced in Boston in getting a release from their sluggish general. The ministry had saved that soldier's pride as much as they could in desiring to have him nearer at hand for counsel;[435] and the sympathetic loyalists whom he had befriended paid him their compliments in an address. Gage finally, on October 10, issued his last order, turning over the command to Howe.[436]

In the middle of October, the burning of Falmouth, the modern Portland, in Maine, seemed to make it clear that the war was to be conducted ruthlessly on the British part. Captain Mowatt, with a small fleet, had entered the harbor and set the town on fire, and to those who communicated with him it was said that he announced his doings to be but the beginning of a course of such outrages. When the news reached Washington, he dispatched Sullivan to Portsmouth, with orders to resist as far as he could any similar demonstration there.[437] What a modern British historian[438] has called a "wanton and cruel deed" seems to have been but the hasty misjudgment of an inferior officer, without orders to warrant the act, and the ministry promptly disowned the responsibility.[439] During October, also, a committee of Congress,[440] visiting Washington's camp, could see for themselves the troubles of their heroic commander. They had not yet heard in Philadelphia the roar of hostile guns,—a sensation they might now experience. They could share Washington's perplexities as the new enlistments halted upon the expiration of the old,[441] and perhaps join in some of his kindly merriment when Phillis Wheatley, the negress, addressed his Excellency in no very bad verses.[442]

HANDBILL.[443]

FROM BEACON HILL, 1775, No. 1. (Looking towards Dorchester Heights.)

Note.—This and the three companion sketches are drawn from a panoramic view in colors, now in the Cabinet of the Mass. Hist. Soc., of which a much reduced heliotype is given in the Mem. Hist. Boston, iii. 80. This view is a copy by Lieutenant Woodd of the Royal Welsh Fusiliers, from the original by Lieutenant Williams, of the same regiment, which is preserved in the King's Library (Brit. Museum). Cf. Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc., iv. 397, 424; Mem. Hist. Boston, iii. 80.

The foreground on the left is the summit of Beacon Hill, not far from the spot where the State House now stands, though at a level considerably higher than the present one. Two of the guns now standing on Cambridge Common were taken from the dock in Boston after the British evacuated it, and they resemble the cannon here sketched, and one of them may possibly be that identical gun. The spire at the left would seem to be that of the First Church, which stood on the present Washington Street nearly opposite the head of State Street. (Cf. view of it in Memorial History of Boston, ii. 219.) The spire next to the right must have been that of the Old South Church. That on the extreme right would seem to be the steeple of the New South (Church Green) in Summer Street, now disappeared.

FROM BEACON HILL, 1775, No. 2. (Looking towards Roxbury.)

In No. 2 the Hancock House is in the foreground. The earliest sketch of this house is a very small one, making part of the Price-Faneuil View of Boston (1743), and its presence in which and other data led to the suspicion that this 1743 view was from an old plate, which had been originally cut twenty years earlier, and this was subsequently proven. Cf. Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc., xviii. 68; xxi. 249. The earliest enlarged view of the house is in the Mass. Mag., 1789. Cf. Mem. Hist. Bost., iii. 202. An oil painting, belonging to Mrs. F. E. Bacon, is on deposit in the halls of the Bostonian Society, where, also, are some interior views of the house.

The British encampments on Boston Common are indicated in the foreground at the left. The parallel lines (8) show the neck connecting Boston with Roxbury. The meeting-house (10) on the distant land is that of the First Religious Parish in Roxbury, on the site now occupied by the church near the Norfolk Home. The American fort just beyond (at 11) was on a rocky summit, where now the stand-pipe of the Cochituate Water Works is placed.

FROM BEACON HILL, 1775, No. 3. (Looking towards Brookline and the outlet of Charles River.)

No. 3 shows in the foreground the most westerly of the three summits of Beacon Hill (Louisbourg Square—though much lower, the hill having been cut down—represents its present site), and the rope walks. There is a similar water-color drawing among the Peter Force maps and views in the library of Congress.

The inward curve of the nearer shore on the right of the picture represents the area now including Cambridge Street and the territory north of it, below Blossom Street, covering the approaches to the bridge now leading to Cambridge, the oldest parts of which near the College are shown at 16; while at 17 we have the American encampments at Prospect Hill, the modern Somerville. The American works between the College and Charles River seem to be intended by 15. The mouth of the river is seemingly indicated by the point of land just below the number 14, which apparently stands for the Brookline fort and its connections, in the modern Longwood. Between the man in the foreground and the somewhat abrupt eminence beyond him, was a depression in the outline of the ridge, not far from the head of the present Anderson Street.

FROM BEACON HILL, 1775, No. 4. (Looking towards Charlestown.)

No. 4 has the Old West Church in the foreground, where Jonathan Mayhew preached. Its spire was subsequently taken down by the British to prevent its use as a signal station for the friends of the provincials. It stood till 1806, when the present edifice was built. (Drake's Landmarks, 374.)

This picture is substantially duplicated on another page, in the Rawdon view, sketched during the continuance of the battle of Bunker Hill. The Mount Pisca (Pisgah) at 19 the present Prospect Hill in Somerville. The lines of Winter Hill and Ploughed Hill would be in the direction of 20. At 27 is a glimpse of the Mystick River seen beyond Charlestown Neck, the armed British transport at 16 commanding the road over that neck. At 22 are the new works of the British, begun after the battle of Bunker Hill, and shown in the contemporary plan of the Charlestown peninsula, given on another page, while the British encampment is on the inner slope of the hill, at 23. Below, and along the shore (24, 24), are indicated the ruins of Charlestown, while the figures 25 mark the position of the redoubt which was defended by Colonel Prescott and his men. The house on the hither shore, below the transport, marks nearly the spot where the present bridge to East Cambridge begins. In the foreground on the extreme right are somewhat vague indications of the dam inclosing the mill-pond, in which the present Haymarket Square occupies a central position.

Perhaps they may have had the grim satisfaction of riding to distant parts of the lines in Thomas Hutchinson's coach, kept now for the general's use, if we may believe the refugee himself.[444]

A little later, Josiah Quincy, who from his house at Braintree could look out upon the harbor, had been urging Washington to block the channel, and thus imprison the British ships there at anchor, and prevent the coming of others. Washington appreciated the motives of that ardent patriot, but he would have liked better the cannon and powder that would have rendered the plan feasible.[445] At all events, the possible chances of the plan made not a very pleasant prospect for Howe, who had already set his mind—as, indeed, the ministry had already advised[446]—upon evacuating the town; but his ships were as yet not sufficient for the task, and hardly sufficient to protect his supply-boats from the improvised navy which Washington had been for some time commissioning.[447]

John Adams, in Philadelphia, was getting uneasy over the apparent inaction of Washington, and wrote in November (1775) to Mercy Warren that Mrs. Washington was going to Cambridge,[448] and he hoped she might prove to have ambition enough for her husband's glory to give occasion to the Lord to have mercy on the souls of Howe and Burgoyne![449]

The left wing of the beleaguering army was now pushed forward and occupied Cobble Hill, the site of the present McLean Asylum, and the two armies watched each other at closer quarters than before, the almost foolhardy Americans feeling increased confidence when the fortunate captain of an ordnance brig gave them a supply of munitions. In December, Massachusetts and New Hampshire[450] promptly supplied the loss of Connecticut and Rhode Island troops, who were not to be induced to prolong their enlistments. Washington was cheered with this alacrity of a portion, at least, of the New England yeomen, and he suffered as many as he could of those who had come hastily to the camp in the spring to go home on brief furloughs to make winter provision for their families. Before the year was out, Congress had authorized Washington to destroy Boston if he found it necessary. The British general was, on his part, organizing in that town a Royal Regiment of Highland Emigrants,[451] and other loyalist battalions, putting Ruggles, Forrest, and Gorham in command of them.[452]

On the first of January, 1776, the federal flag, with its thirteen stripes and British Union,[453] was first raised over the American camp, and their council of war was inspirited to determine upon an attack, as soon as the chances of success seemed favorable; but the prudent ones trusted rather to Howe's evacuating through his straits for provisions, and held back from the final decision. It was not forgotten that 2,000 men were still without firelocks, and there was not much powder in the magazines. The total environing army scarce numbered ten thousand men fit for duty, and they were stretched out in a long circumvallation, while the enemy could mass at least half that number on any one point, and had a fleet to sustain them. Howe had not shown a much more active spirit than Gage had displayed, and there was a feeling in the British camp that he was too timid for the task,[454] and there could not have been much hopefulness in seeing so much better a general as Clinton sent off in January with several regiments, to join other forces and a fleet on the coast of North Carolina.[455] Washington meanwhile kept up a show of activity, and when, on the evening of January 8, he sent Knowlton on a marauding scout into Charlestown, there was a little flutter of excitement in Boston for fear it foreboded more serious work, and the British officers were hastily summoned to their posts from the play-house, where they were diverting themselves,[456]—the play on this particular occasion being something they had planned, and called The Boston Blockade.

As early as the middle of June, 1775, General Wooster, with some Connecticut troops, had by invitation of Congress marched to the neighborhood of New York, to be prepared for any demonstration from British ships which might attempt to land troops, for the British naval power was and continued to be supreme in the harbor till Washington occupied the city.

Note.—This broadside, and the opposite one, are given in fac-similes from copies in the Massachusetts Historical Society's library, and they pertain to theatrical performances given by the British officers in Boston during the siege.

Before Clinton had left Boston, Washington, under Lee's urgency, had decided to possess New York, and the plan, which was submitted to John Adams, as representing the Congress, met with that gentleman's approval.[457] Lee was accordingly sent into Connecticut to organize such a force as he could for advancing on that city.[458] He kept Washington informed of his success in these preliminaries, and finally reached New York himself on February 4,[459] and here he remained till it was ascertained that Clinton was proceeding to the South, where he was instructed to follow that general and confront him as best he could, as we shall presently see.[460]

The chief event of February, 1776, was the arrival of the cannon captured at Ticonderoga, and the placing them in the siege batteries along the American lines, for Washington had dispatched Knox to bring these much needed cannon to him. John Adams records meeting them on their way at Framingham, January 25;[461] and when the train of fifty pieces and other munitions reached the lines, there was something less of anxiety than there had been before.[462] The army, however, was still deficient in small arms, and Washington wrote urgently to the New York authorities for assistance of that kind.[463]

By the first of March powder had been obtained in considerable quantities, and Washington opened a bombardment from all parts of his lines, which was deemed necessary to conceal a projected movement. During the night of March 4-5, General Thomas, from the Roxbury lines,[464] with 2,500 men, took possession of Dorchester Heights.[465] It was moonlight, but the men worked on without discovery, and by morning had thrown up a cover. Both armies now laid plans for battle.

BOSTON.

After a photograph of a view in the British Museum. Cf. similar views in Moore's Diary of the Amer. Rev., i. 97; Mem. Hist. Boston, iii. p. 156; Lossing's Field-Book; Grant's British Battles, ii. 138. The house in the left foreground is the house built by Governor Shirley. It is still standing, but much changed. See a view of it in the frontispiece of Mem. Hist. Boston, vol. ii.

There is a view of the town and harbor in the Pennsylvania Mag., June, 1773; and others of a later date are in the Columbian Mag., Dec., 1787; Mass. Mag., June, 1791. Cf. Winsor's Readers' Handbook of the Amer. Rev., p. 66, for other views and descriptions.

BOSTON CASTLE.

After a photograph of a view in the British Museum.

Howe determined to attack the Heights by a front and flank assault. Washington reinforced Thomas, and planned at the same time to move on Boston by boats across the back bay. The British dropped down on transports to the Castle, but a long storm delayed the projected movement. This so effectually gave the Americans time to increase their defences that the British general saw that to evacuate the town was the least of all likely evils. As he began to show signs of such a movement, the Americans began to speculate upon their significance. Heath, at least, was fearful that the appearances were only a cloak to cover an intention to land suddenly somewhere between Cambridge and Squantum.[466] But the genuineness of Howe's intention gradually became apparent, as, indeed, evacuation with him was a necessity, while Admiral Shuldam also saw that his fleet, too, was immediately imperilled from the newly raised works on Dorchester Heights. So Howe had scarce an alternative but to give a tacit consent to a plan of the selectmen of Boston for him to leave the town uninjured, if his troops were suffered to embark undisturbed. Washington entered upon no formal agreement to that end, but acquiesced silently as Howe had done.[467] There was still some cannonading as Washington pushed his batteries nearer Boston on the Dorchester side, at Nook's Hill, teaching Howe the necessity of increased expedition. By early light on the 17th of March it was discovered that Howe had begun to embark his troops, and by nine o'clock the last boat had pushed off, completing a roll, including seamen, fit for duty, of about 11,000 men, with about a thousand refugees.[468] The Continentals were alert, and their advanced guards promptly entered the British works on the several sides. The enemy's ships fell down the harbor unmolested; but that night they blew up Castle William, and the vessels gathered together in Nantasket Roads. Here they remained for ten days, causing Washington not a little anxiety; and he wrote to Quincy, at Braintree, to have all the roads from the landings patrolled, lest the British should send spies into the country.[469] On the 27th, all but a few armed vessels, intended to warn off belated succor,[470] had disappeared in the direction of Halifax.[471]

Ward was left with five regiments to hold the town and its neighborhood,[472] while Colonel Gridley, "whom I have been taught to view", said Washington, "as one of the greatest engineers of the age", was directed to fortify the sea approaches.[473]

OCCUPATION OF BOSTON.

After an original in the collection of Proclamations in the library of the Mass. Hist. Society. Cf. Mem. Hist. Boston, iii. p. 181; Sparks's Washington, iii. 322; Niles's Principles and Acts (1876), p. 127. Curwen records, when the proclamation reached London, that its prohibition of plunder "was a source of comfort."

Washington gradually moved his remaining army to New York, not without apprehension at one time that he would have to direct them to Rhode Island, for a fog had befooled some people in Newport into sending him a message that the British fleet was in the offing there. He left Cambridge himself April 4th, not for Virginia, as some good people imagined he would do, out of loyalty to his province,[474] but to defend as he could the line of the Hudson, of which signs were already accumulating that it was the game for each side to secure. A few of the enemy's ships still hung about Nantasket Roads, and some desultory fighting occurred in the harbor.[475] The British, however, failed to prevent some important captures of munition vessels being made. It was not till June that General Lincoln, with a militia force, brought guns to bear upon the still lingering enemy, when they sailed away, and Boston was at last free of a hostile force.

It is now necessary to follow two other movements, which had been begun while the siege of Boston was in progress, the one to the north, and the other to the south.

The exploits of Allen and Arnold at Ticonderoga, already related, had invited further conquests; but the Continental Congress hesitated to take any steps which might seem to carry war across the line till the Canadians had the opportunity of casting in their lot with their neighbors. On the 1st of June, 1775, Congress had distinctly avowed this purpose of restraint; and they well needed to be cautious, for the Canadian French had not forgotten the bitter aspersions on their religion which Congress had, with little compunction, launched upon its professors, under the irritation of the Quebec Act. Still their rulers were aliens, and the traditional hatred of centuries between races is not easily kept in abeyance. Ethan Allen was more eager to avail himself of this than Congress was to have him; but the march of events converted the legislators, and the opportunity which Allen grieved to see lost was not so easily regained when Congress at last authorized the northern invasion. Arnold and Allen had each aimed to secure the command of such an expedition, the one by appealing to the Continental Congress, the other by representations to that of New York. Allen had also gone in person to Philadelphia, and he and his Green Mountain Boys were not without influence upon Congress, in their quaint and somewhat rough ways, as their exuberant patriotism later made the New York authorities forget their riotous opposition to the policy which that province had been endeavoring to enforce in the New Hampshire Grants. Connecticut had already sent forward troops to Ticonderoga to hold that post till Congress should decide upon some definite action; and at the end of June, 1775, orders reached Schuyler which he might readily interpret as authorizing him, if the Canadians did not object, to advance upon Canada.[476] He soon started to assume command, but speedily found matters unpromising. The Johnsons were arming the Indians up the Mohawk and beyond in a way that boded no good, and they had entered into compacts with the British commanders in Canada. Arnold had been at Ticonderoga, and had quarrelled with Hinman, the commander of the Connecticut troops. Schuyler heard much of the Green Mountain Boys, but he only knew them as the lawless people of the Grants, and soon learned that Allen and Warner had themselves set to quarrelling. Presently, however, Allen reported at Ticonderoga for special service, as he had been cast off by his own people. Another volunteer, Major John Brown, was sent by Schuyler into Canada for information. Schuyler's position was a trying one. He had few troops of his own province. The Connecticut troops were too lax in discipline to suit his ideas of military propriety, and his temperament had little to induce him to make concessions to the exigencies of the conditions.[477] With the best heart he could, he tried to organize his force for an advance, and assisted, in Indian conferences at Albany, to disarm, as far as he might, the Mohawks of their hostility.

In August the news from Canada began to be alarming. Richard Montgomery, an Irish officer who had some years before left the army to settle on the Hudson and marry, was now one of the new brigadiers. He urged Schuyler to advance and anticipate the movement now said to be intended by Carleton, the English general commanding in Canada. At this juncture Schuyler got word from Washington that a coöperating expedition would be dispatched by way of the Kennebec, which, if everything went well, might unite with Schuyler's before Quebec.

Montgomery had already started from Ticonderoga, and it was not till the foot of Lake Champlain had been reached that Schuyler overtook him, and, with an effective force of about 1,000 men, he now prepared, on the 6th of September, to advance upon St. Johns. The demonstration caused a little bloodshed, but, getting information which deceived him, he fell back to the Isle-aux-Noix, and prepared to hold it against a counter attack, and to prevent any vessel of the enemy penetrating to the lake. The outlook for a while was not auspicious. Malaria made sad inroads among the men, and of those who were left on duty, insubordination and lack of discipline, and perhaps a shade of treachery, impaired their efficiency. Schuyler was prostrate on his bed, and Montgomery was forced to unmilitary expedients because of the temper of his troops. Schuyler's disorder seeming to have permanently mastered him, he resigned the command to Montgomery and returned up the lake. He had, at least, the satisfaction of meeting reinforcements pushing down to the main body. Before these arrived Montgomery had begun the siege of St. Johns, and he was pressing it, when Ethan Allen, whom Montgomery was expecting to join him, met with Brown, and these two planned an attack on Montreal. It was attempted, but Brown and his men failed to coöperate, and Allen and those he had with him were finally captured.[478] When the Canadians heard that the redoubtable Green Mountain leader was in irons on board an English vessel bound for Halifax,[479] a great deal was done towards awakening them from that spell of neutrality upon which the American campaign so much depended for success.

So Montgomery continued to keep his lines about St. Johns with great discouragement. He met every embarrassment which a hastily improvised and undisciplined mass of men could impose upon a man who was of high spirit and knew what soldierly discipline ought to be. A gleam of hope at last came. He detached a party to attack Fort Chamblée, further down the Sorel, and it succeeded (October 18), and he was thus enabled to replenish his store of ammunition, which was by this time running low.[480] So Montgomery was enabled to press the siege of St. Johns with renewed vigor. When Wooster, the veteran Connecticut general, joined him with the troops of that colony, there was some apprehension that the younger Montgomery might find it difficult to maintain his higher rank against the rather too independent spirit of the old fighter.[481] No disturbance, however, occurred, and both worked seemingly in union of spirit. Every effort of Carleton to relieve the British commander at St. Johns failing, that officer surrendered the post, and, on November 3d, Montgomery took possession.

We may turn now to the expedition that Washington had promised to dispatch from Cambridge, and which had been thought of as early as May. Benedict Arnold had hurried from Crown Point to lay his grievances before the commander-in-chief. It seemed to Washington worth while to assuage his passions and to profit by his dashing valor, for he had by this time become convinced that Howe had no intention of venturing beyond his lines. So Arnold was commissioned Colonel, and given command of the new expedition, and the satisfied leader saw gathering about him various quick spirits, better recognized later. Such was Morgan, who led some Virginia riflemen, and Aaron Burr, who sprang to the occasion as a volunteer.[482] Washington provided Arnold with explicit instructions, and with an address to circulate among the Canadians.[483] About eleven hundred men proceeded from Cambridge to Newburyport, whence, by vessel and bateaux, they reached Fort Western (Augusta, Maine), towards the end of September. Here the expeditionary force plunged into the wilderness, up the Kennebec, environed with perils and the burdens of labor. Suffering and nerving against vexations and weariness that grew worse as they went on, they saw the sick and disheartened fall out, and found their rear companies deserting for want of food.[484] Those that were steadfast were forced to eat moccasins and anything. On they struggled to the ridge of land which marked the summit of the water-shed between the Atlantic and the St. Lawrence. Then began the descent of the Chaudière, perilous amid the rush of its waters, which overturned their boats, and sent much of what stores they had left on a headlong drive down the stream. At last the open country was reached, and Arnold stopped to refresh the survivors. He dispatched Burr to see if he could find Montgomery,[485] and, making the most of the friendly assistance of the neighboring inhabitants, Arnold advanced to Point Levi, and began to make preparations for crossing the St. Lawrence. The city of Quebec looked across the basin in amazement on a stout little army, of whose coming, however, they had had an intimation; while Arnold's men were hard at work making or finding canoes and scaling-ladders.

Meanwhile where was Montgomery, whom Burr, disguised as a priest, and speaking French or Latin as required, was seeking up the river? He had got possession of Montreal without a blow, and sending Colonel Easton down to the mouth of the Sorel, that officer intercepted the little flotilla with which Carleton was trying to reach Quebec, and captured all of the fugitives except Carleton himself, who escaped in a disguise by night. The news of Arnold, which Burr at last brought to Montgomery, made that general more anxious than ever to push on to Quebec, but the expiration of the enlistments of some of his men much perplexed him, and he was obliged to make many promises to hold his army together. Before Montgomery could reach him, Arnold had in the night taken about 550 men across the river, and ascending at Wolfe's Cove, he had paraded them before the walls and demanded a surrender. The garrison was small, and in part doubtful, and the inhabitants were more than doubtful, but the lieutenant-governor, Cramahé, with his stanchest troops, the Royal Scotch, overawed the rest, and kept the gates closed. The vaporing Arnold had been known in the past within the town as a horse-jockey, and his promise as a general, with his shivering crowd, did not greatly impress those whom he had somewhat farcically beleaguered. In a day or two Arnold became frightened and drew off his men, strengthened now a little by others who had crossed the river. Unmolested he went up the river, to keep within reach of Montgomery, perceiving as he went up the banks the succor for Quebec which Carleton, having picked up men here and there, was bringing down by water.

From the Political Mag., iii. 351. Cf. Jones's Campaign for the Conquest of Canada, p. 112; Mag. of Amer. Hist., June, 1883, p. 409; Moore's Diary of the Revolution, p. 454; B. Sulte's Hist. des Canadiens français (as Lord Dorchester, to which rank Carleton was subsequently raised).

By the 1st of December, Montgomery, with three armed schooners and only 300 men, reached Arnold at Point-aux-Trembles. The united forces now turned their faces towards Quebec, less than a thousand in all, with a body of two hundred Canadians, under Colonel James Livingston, acting in conjunction; and on the 5th were before the town. Carleton haughtily scorned all advances of Montgomery to communicate with him, and devoted himself to overawing the town, quite content that the rigors of winter should alone attack the invaders. While the Americans were making some show of planting siege-batteries, plans for assault were in reality maturing, and a stormy night was awaited to carry them out. It came on the night before the last day of the year. While two feints were to be made on the upper plain, the main assaults were to be along the banks of the St. Charles and the St. Lawrence, from opposite sides, with a view to joining and gaining the upper town from the lower. Montgomery led the attack beneath Cape Diamond on the St. Lawrence side, and while in advance with a small vanguard, and unsuspecting that his approach was discovered, he was opened upon with grape, and fell, with others about him.[486] His death was the end of the assault on that side. Arnold was at first successful in carrying the barriers opposed to him, but was soon severely wounded and taken to the rear. Morgan, who succeeded to the command, was pressing their advantage, when Carleton, relieved by Montgomery's failure, and by the discovery that the other attacks meant nothing, sent out a force, which so hemmed Morgan in, that, having already learned of Montgomery's failure, he found it prudent to surrender with the few hundred men still clinging to him. The Americans elsewhere in the field hastily withdrew to their camp, and Carleton was too suspicious of the townspeople to dare to take any further advantage of his success.

The command of the Americans now devolved on Lieutenant-Colonel Donald Campbell, who sent an express to Wooster at Montreal, urging him to come and take the control. That general thought it more prudent to hold Montreal as a base,[487] and remained where he was, while he forwarded the dismal news to his superior, Schuyler, at Albany, who had quite enough on his hands to overawe Sir John Johnson and the Tories up the Mohawk. The succession of Wooster to the command in Canada boded no good to the New York general, and led to such crimination and recrimination between the two that Congress, towards spring (1776), took steps to relieve Schuyler of the general charge of the campaign. Thomas, who had rendered himself conspicuous in driving the British from Boston, was made a major-general (March 6), and was ordered to take the active command in Canada. A New England general for troops in the main from those colonies seemed desirable, and Thomas was certainly the best of those furnished by Massachusetts during the early days of the war.

Meanwhile Arnold, amid the snows, was audaciously seeming to keep up the siege of Quebec in his little camp, three miles from the town. Small-pox was beginning to make inroads on his little army, scarce at some periods exceeding five hundred effective men. Wooster finally came from Montreal on the first of April, and assumed command. For the influence intended to soothe and gain the Canadians to pass from the courtly Montgomery to the rigid and puritanical Wooster was a great loss, and it soon became manifest in the growing hostility of the people of the neighboring country. It was by such a pitiful force that Carleton allowed himself to be shut up in Quebec for five months.

This was the condition of affairs when a commission, consisting of Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Chase, and Charles Carroll, was sent by Congress, with delegated powers, to act with prompter decision on the spot.[488] They reached Albany early in April, and found Thomas, from Boston, already there. So the two generals, Schuyler and Thomas, pushed on ahead of the commissioners, and, with the reinforcements now setting towards Canada, before and behind them, it seemed as if a new vigor might be exerted upon the so far disastrous Northern campaign. Thomas directed his course to Quebec, while the commissioners went to Montreal, where they found the most gloomy apprehensions existing, and were soon convinced that, without hard money and troops, Canada must be relinquished. Franklin returned to Philadelphia to impress this upon Congress, while Schuyler was at his wits' ends to find men, provisions, and money to send forward, till Congress should act.

Washington, by this time in New York with the troops which had forced the evacuation of Boston, yielded to the orders of Congress, and sent Sullivan of New Hampshire with a brigade, carrying money and provisions, to reinforce the wretched army in Canada, thereby diminishing, with great risk, his own force to less than 5,000 men. Thomas had at this time reached Quebec (May 1), where he found, out of the 1,900 men constituting the beleaguering army, only about a thousand not in hospital, and scarcely five hundred of these were effective troops. It was necessary to do something at once, for the breaking ice told the American general that a passage was preparing for a British fleet, which was known to be below. Plans for an assault on the town miscarried, and while Thomas was beginning to remove his sick preparatory to a retreat, three British men-of-war appeared in the basin. They landed troops, and gave Carleton an opportunity to hang upon the rear of the retreating invaders, and pick up prisoners and cannon. He did not pursue them far.[489]

Near the same time a force of British and Tories, coming down the river from Ontario, had fallen upon Arnold's outpost at Cedar Rapids, above Montreal, and had captured its garrison. Thus disaster struck both ends of the American line of occupation. The force under Thomas was withdrawing to the Sorel, when Burgoyne, with large reinforcements, landed at Quebec. Up the Sorel the Americans retreated, joined now by the troops under Thompson, which Washington had earlier sent from New York. Thomas[490] soon died (June 2) of small-pox at Chamblée; and Wooster being recalled, Sullivan, who now met the army, took the command, and pushing forward to the mouth of the Sorel, prepared to make a stand. He soon sent a force under Thompson towards Three Rivers, to oppose the approaching British, now reaching 13,000 in number, either at Quebec or advancing from it,—a number to confront, of which apparently Sullivan had no conception. This general himself possessed hardly more than 2,500 men, for Arnold, instead of reinforcing him, as directed, had left Montreal for Chamblée. The action at Three Rivers, of which the cannonading had been heard at the Sorel, proved a disastrous defeat. It was followed by the British vessels pushing up the river, and as soon as they came in sight Sullivan broke camp and also retreated to Chamblée, followed languidly by Burgoyne. Here Sullivan joined Arnold, and the united fugitives, of whom a large part were weakened by inoculation, continued the retreat to the Isle-aux-Noix, thence on to Crown Point, where early in July the poor fragmentary army found a little rest,—five thousand in all, and of these at least one half were in hospital.[491]

DUNMORE'S SEAL.

From a plate in Valentine's N. Y. City Manual, 1851.

We may glance now at the progress of events to the southward. In Virginia, Dunmore, the royal governor, hearing of Gage's proclamation proscribing Hancock and Adams, feared that he might be seized as a hostage, and took safety on board a man-of-war in Yorktown harbor. Events soon moved rapidly in that quarter.[492] Patrick Henry, perhaps a little unadvisedly, was made commander of their militia.[493] In due time, from his floating capitol, Dunmore issued his proclamation granting freedom to slaves of rebels,[494] and had directed a motley crew of his adherents to destroy the colonial stores at Suffolk, and this led to a brisk engagement at the Great Bridge (December 9, 1775), not far from Norfolk, in which the royalists were totally defeated.[495] The destruction of that town, now under the guns of the royal vessels, soon followed, on the first of January, 1776.[496]

On the 27th of February, 1776, the Scotch settlers of North Carolina, instigated by Martin, the royal governor, and under the lead of their chief, Macdonald,[497] endeavored to scatter a force of militia at Moore's Creek Bridge, but were brought to bay, and compelled to surrender about half of a force which had numbered fifteen or sixteen hundred.[498]

Early in 1776 the task was assigned to Clinton, who had in January departed from Boston, as we have seen, to force and hold the Southern colonies to their allegiance, and Cornwallis, with troops, was sent over under convoy of Sir Peter Parker's fleet, to give Clinton the army he needed. The fleet did not reach North Carolina till May. In March, Lee, while in New York, had wished to be ordered to the command in Canada, as "he was the only general officer on the continent who could speak and think in French." He was disappointed, and ordered farther south.[499] By May he was in Virginia, ridding the country of Tories, and trying to find out where Parker intended to land.[500] It was expected that Clinton would return north to New York in season to operate with Howe, when he opened the campaign there in the early summer, as that general expected to do, and the interval for a diversion farther south was not long. Lee had now gone as far as Charleston (S. C.), and taken command in that neighborhood, while in charge of the little fort at the entrance of the harbor was William Moultrie, upon whom Lee was inculcating the necessity of a slow and sure fire,[501] in case it should prove that Parker's destination, as it might well be, was to get a foothold in the Southern provinces, and break up the commerce which fed the rebellion through that harbor.

FORT MOULTRIE, 1776.

Reduced from the plan in Johnson's Traditions and Reminiscences of the Amer. Revolution in the South (Charleston, S. C., 1851). It shows that the rear portion of the fort had not been finished when the attack took place. The same plate has an enlarged plan of the fort only. See the maps in Drayton's Memoirs of the Amer. Rev. in the South (Charleston, 1821, two vols.), ii. 290, which is similar to Johnson's Ramsay's Rev. in S. Carolina, i. 144, which is of less area; and that in Gordon's Amer. Revolution, iii. 358. These are the maps of American origin. Lossing (ii. 754) follows Johnson.

The people of Charleston had been for some time engaged on their defences, and "seem to wish a trial of their mettle", wrote a looker-on.[502] The fort in question was built of palmetto logs, and was unfinished on the land side. Its defenders had four days' warning, and the neighboring militia were summoned. On the 4th of June the hostile fleet appeared,[503] and having landed troops on an adjacent island, it was not till the 27th that their dispositions were made for an attack.

ATTACK ON CHARLESTON, 1776.

From Political Mag. (London, 1780), vol. i. p. 171,—somewhat reduced. Carrington notes (p. 176), as dated Aug. 31, 1776, and belonging to the North Amer. Pilot: "An exact plan of Charleston and harbor, from an actual survey, with the attack of Fort Sullivan on the 26th June, 1776, by his Majesty's squadron, commanded by Sir Peter Parker." Cf. no. 37 of the American Atlas (Faden's), and the Amer. Military Pocket Atlas, 1776, no. 5. Mr. Courtenay, in the Charleston Year Book, 1883 (p. 414), gives a folded fac-simile of a broadside map, A plan of the Attack on Fort Sullivan ... with the disposition of the King's land forces, and the encampments and entrenchments of the rebels, from the drawings made on the spot. Engraved by Wm. Faden, by whom it was published Aug. 10, 1776. The dedication to Com. Parker is signed by Lieut.-Col. Thomas James, royal regiment of artillery, June 30, 1776. It has a corner plan of the "Platform in Sullivan's Fort", by James, on a larger scale. Appended to the map are a list of the attacking ships, and extracts from Parker's and Clinton's despatches. The channel between Long and Sullivan's islands is given as seven feet in the deepest part. The original MS. of this Faden map is in the Faden Collection in the library of Congress (no. 41), where is also a MS. map of Charleston and its harbor, a topographical drawing, finished in colors (no. 40). Cf. Plan de la Barre et du hâvre de Charlestown d'après un plan anglois levé en 1776. Rédigé au dépôt général de la marine [Paris], 1778. (Brit. Mus. Maps, 1885, col. 764.)

These are the different English maps. In the same Charleston Year Book, p. 478, is an account of the successive forts on the same spot. A view of Charleston is in the London Mag. (1762, p. 296), and one by Thomas Leitch, engraved by S. Smith, 1776, is noted in the Brit. Mus. Map Catal., 1885, col. 764.

Their ships threw shot at the fort all day, which did very little damage, while the return fire was rendered with a precision surprising in untried artillerists, and seriously damaged the fleet,[504] of which one ship was grounded and abandoned.

WILLIAM MOULTRIE.

From the copperplate in his Memoirs of American Revolution, on far as it related to States of N. and S. Carolina and Georgia. Compiled from most authentic materials, the author's personal knowledge of various events, and including an Epistolary Correspondence on Public Affairs, with Civil and Military Officers, at that period. (New York, 1802, two volumes.) The likeness in the National Portrait Gallery (New York, 1834) is Scriven's engraving of Trumbull's picture.

There is a portrait in the cabinet of the Penna. Hist. Soc., no. 58. See the paper on General Moultrie in South Carolina in Appleton's Journal, xix. 503, and Wilmot G. Desaussure's Address on Maj.-Gen. William Moultrie, before the Cincinnati Society of South Carolina, 1885.

The expected land attack from Clinton's troops, already ashore on Long Island, was not made. A strong wind had raised the waters of the channel between that island and Sullivan's Island so high that it could not be forded, and suitable boats for the passage were not at hand.[505] A few days later the shattered vessels and the troops left the neighborhood, and Colonel Moultrie had leisure to count the costs of his victory, which was twelve killed and twice as many wounded. The courage of Sergeant Jasper, in replacing on the bastion a flag which had been shot away, became at once a household anecdote.[506]

[CRITICAL ESSAY ON THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION.]

THE earliest attempt with any precision to enumerate the various sources of information upon the whole series of military events about Boston during 1775 and 1776 was by Richard Frothingham, in the notes of his Siege of Boston (1849), where, in an appendix, he groups together the principal authorities. Later than this, Barry (Massachusetts, iii. ch. 1), Dawson (Battles, vol. i.), and others had been full in footnotes; but the next systematized list of sources was printed by Justin Winsor in 1875, in the Bulletin of the Boston Public Library. This last enumeration was somewhat extended in the Bunker Hill Memorial, published by the city of Boston,[507] and still more so by the same writer in his Handbook of the American Revolution, Boston, 1879. It is condensed in the Memorial Hist. of Boston, iii. 117.

Salem, because of a little alleged pricking of bayonets when Leslie's expedition was harassed there in February, 1775, has sometimes claimed to have witnessed the first shedding of blood in the war. The principal monograph on the subject is C. M. Endicott's Account of Leslie's retreat at the North Bridge in Salem, on Sunday, Feb. 26, 1775 (Salem, 1856).[508] Early resistance to British arms, and even bloodshed in the act, had undoubtedly occurred before the affair at Lexington, and writers have cited the mob at Golden Hill,[509] in New York, and the massacre at Westminster, in the New Hampshire Grants, when an armed body of settlers arose against the authority of the king, as asserted in favor of the jurisdiction of New York in March, 1775.[510]

The precipitation of warfare, however, can only be connected with the expedition to Lexington and Concord. Every stage of the affair has been invested with interest by discussion and illustration. The ride of Paul Revere to give warning has grown to be a household tale in the spirited verse of Longfellow; but, as is the case with almost all of that poet's treatments of historical episodes, he has paid little attention to exactness of fact, and has wildly, and often without poetic necessity, turned the channels of events. In literary treatment, the events of Lexington and Concord form so distinct a group of references that they can be best considered in a later note (A), as can also the sources of information respecting the fight at Bunker Hill (B).

Of the siege of Boston, the chief monograph is Frothingham's, already referred to. Other contributions of a monographic nature are the address and chronicle of the siege by Dr. George E. Ellis in the Evacuation Memorial of the City of Boston (1876); W. W. Wheildon's Siege and Evacuation of Boston and Charlestown (Boston, 1876, pp. 64); and the chapters on the siege in Dawson's Battles of the United States, vol. i., and Carrington's Battles of the Revolution (1876).[511]

Among the general historians, Bancroft has made an elaborate study of the siege, devoting to it a large part of his vol. viii. (orig. edition), and all the histories of the United States, Massachusetts, and Boston necessarily cover it.[512]

The principal of the later British historians is Mahon, in his Hist. of England, vol. vi. Lecky (England in the Eighteenth Century, ii. ch. 12), while he goes little into details, gives an admirable account of the two respective camps. The Life of Burgoyne, by Fonblanque, is the fullest of the biographies of the actors on the British side.

On the American side, the lives of leading officers all necessarily yield to those of Washington,[513] whose letters, as contained in vol. iii. of Sparks's ed. of his Writings, can well be supplemented by those of Reed, then his secretary.[514] Of the contemporary general historians, Gordon and Mercy Warren were familiar with the actors of the time. The Journals of the Continental Congress and of the Provincial Congress of Massachusetts follow the development of events, and show how in some ways the legislation shaped them.[515] Contemporary records and comments are garnered in Almon's Remembrancer, Force's Archives, Niles's Principles and Acts of the Revolution, and Moore's Diary of the Amer. Revolution. The life and daily routine of both camps are to be traced in abundant orderly books, diaries, and correspondence, of which the register is given in the notes (C and D) following this essay.

Of the Canada expedition, in its combined movements by the Kennebec and Lake Champlain, the authorities for detail may well be reserved for later notes (G and H), but for comprehensive treatment references may be made to the general historians and a few special monographs. As respects the campaign in general, the only considerable special study is Charles Henry Jones's History of the Campaign for the Conquest of Canada in 1776 (Philad., 1882). The book does not profess, however, to follow the movements before the death of Montgomery, nor to touch at all the coöperating column of Arnold before it had united with the other. A principal interest of its writer is, furthermore, to chronicle the share of Pennsylvanians in the campaign. The study is therefore but an imperfect one, and the author gives the student no assistance in indicating his sources. The reader most necessarily have recourse, then, for a survey of the whole campaign, to such general works as Bancroft's United States (vol. viii.), Carrington's Battles (p. 122), and other comprehensive and biographical works.[516]

The political aspects of the movement on Canada arise in the main from the mission of the Commissioners of Congress to the army, and their efforts to affect the sympathies of the Canadians. The sources of this matter are also traced in a subsequent note.[517]

[NOTES.]

A. Lexington and Concord.—The details of Revere's connection with the events of the 18th and 19th April are not altogether without dispute. Revere's own narrative was not written till 1798,[518] and was printed in the Mass. Hist. Soc. Collections, vol. v., but not so accurately as to preclude the advisability of reprinting it in the same society's Proceedings, Nov., 1878. Richard Devens's nearly contemporary account of the signal lanterns is printed in Frothingham's Siege of Boston, p. 57.[519] The traditional story of the other messenger of that eventful night is told in H. W. Holland's William Dawes and his ride with Paul Revere.[520]

In a book which was published at Boston in 1873 as Historic Fields and Mansions of Middlesex, but whose title in a second edition, in 1876, reads Old Landmarks and Historic Fields of Middlesex, Mr. Samuel Adams Drake follows (ch. xvi.-xviii.) the route of the British troops from Lechmere Point to Concord and back to Charlestown, pointing out the localities of signal events in the day's course.

The provincial congress ordered depositions[521] to be taken of those who had participated in the events of the day, with a main purpose of establishing that the British fired first at Lexington. These were signed in several copies. One set of them, accompanied by a request from Warren to Franklin to have them printed and dispersed in England, was entrusted to Capt. John Derby, of Salem, who took also a copy of the Essex Gazette, in which an account of the fighting was printed, and sailed in a swift packet for England four days after Lieutenant Nunn, bearing Gage's despatches, had sailed from Boston (April 24). Derby reached Southampton on the 27th of May, and was in London the next day.[522] London had been stirred three weeks before with rumors of a bloody day with Gage's troops,[523] and now two days later the government felt called upon to announce they had no tidings; whereupon Arthur Lee, who, since Franklin had sailed for America, had succeeded to his place as agent of Massachusetts, and had received the papers, made a counter-announcement that the public could see the affidavits at the Mansion House.[524] The tidings spread. Hutchinson communicated the news to Gibbon, and he recorded it in a letter, May 31.[525] On the 5th of June Horace Walpole wrote it to Horace Mann. On the 7th, Dartmouth spoke of the "vague and uncertain accounts of a skirmish, made up for the purpose of conveying misrepresentation."[526]

LEXINGTON DEPOSITION.

Fac-simile of the original in the Arthur Lee Papers in Harvard College library. The fac-simile on the opposite page, relating to the action at Concord, is reproduced from an original in the same collection of papers.

On the same day the friends of America, forming the Constitutional Society, met at the King's Arms in Cornhill, and raised a subscription of £100, to be paid to the widows and families of the provincials who had been killed.[527] On the 8th another vessel reached Liverpool, confirming the news, but giving no particulars. Finally, on the 10th, the official report of Gage, with the statements of Percy and Smith, reached the government.[528]

Meanwhile, both sides at home had been busy with circulating their pleas of vindications. The provincial congress at once despatched messengers south,[529] and the Rev. William Gordon, an Englishman settled in Jamaica Plain, drew up (May 17, 1775) for the patriots their authoritative Account of the Commencement of hostilities;[530] and various other contemporary accounts on the provincial side have come down to us,[531] and of importance among them are the narratives of the ministers of Lexington and Concord, the Reverends Jonas Clark and William Emerson.[532]

LEXINGTON, 1775.

After a plan in Hudson's Lexington, p. 173. The British approached from Boston up the road, past the Munroe Tavern, still standing (C), past Loring's house and barn (I J); and opposite Emerson's house (H) they sighted, looking beyond the meeting-house (L), the Lexington militia, under Capt. John Parker, drawn up along the farther side of the triangular green, in front of the houses of Daniel Harrington (E) and Jonathan Harrington (D, still standing) (who was one of the killed), which were separated from each other by a blacksmith's shop (G). The house on the opposite side of the common (F) was Nathan Munroe's (still standing), and on the third side was Bucknam's Tavern (B, still standing), where Parker's company was mostly assembled when the order was given to form on the common. When the minute-men scattered, most of them ran across the swamp; but some fled up the Bedford road, in the direction of the Clarke House (A), still standing, where Adams and Hancock had spent the night, but from which they were now hurrying towards Burlington for better protection.

On the return of the British from Concord, they met Percy's column on the road between Munroe's Tavern and Loring's. Percy now kept the provincials at bay by planting his field-pieces at M and N, while some of the wounded were carried into the tavern, which is still standing. The buildings (I J) were set on fire and burned down. Balls from Percy's cannon have been dug up since in the town. One went through the meeting-house (L). Several of these balls are preserved. While Percy was halting, General Heath arrived among the provincials and assumed the command. Cf. the plans in Josiah Adams's Address at Acton; Moore's Ballad History of the Revolution.

There are views of the Clarke House in Hudson's Lexington, 430; Drake's Landmarks of Middlesex, 364-368; Lossing's Field-Book, i. 523; and of the Munroe Tavern in Hudson, part ii. p. 161.

The Memoirs of General Heath are, of course, of first importance; for he was on the ground soon after Percy took the command on the British side.[533]

CONCORD, 1775.

This follows a plan in Hudson's Lexington, p. 191. The British approached from Lexington by the road (1), and halted in the middle of the town (3). The provincials, who were assembled by the liberty-pole (2), retired along the road (5) by the Rev. William Emerson's house [Hawthorne's "Old Manse">[, and across the North Bridge (between 5 and 8) to the high land (6), where they halted, and where reinforcements from the neighboring towns reached them. Colonel Smith, the British commander, now sent out two parties to seek for stores. One, which went by the road (4) to the South Bridge, found little. The other followed the road (5) by the North Bridge, and passing beneath the provincials at 6, turned to their right, and took the road (5) to Colonel Barrett's house, where they destroyed some cannon and other stores. This second party had left a detail at the North Bridge to secure their retreat by that way, for the road (10) did not then exist. The provincials, after the party bound to Colonel Barrett's passed on, descended from 6 to the North Bridge, when the detail defending it, who were near 8, recrossed the bridge. Here the first firing took place, and some were killed on both sides, the river being between the combatants. The British detail now retired towards the centre of the town, the Americans following them across the bridge, but immediately dispersing without military order. While thus scattered, the British party, returning from Barrett's house, recrossed the North Bridge without molestation, and rejoined the main body at the centre of the town. Here the British, after destroying other stores and delaying for about two hours, formed for the return march towards Lexington, the main body following the road (2), while a flanking party took the ridge of high land (2).

Cf. also the plans in Frothingham's Siege of Boston, 70.

A few days after the 19th, John Adams tells us[534] he rode along "the scene of action toward Lexington for many miles, and inquired of the inhabitants the circumstances." He gives us no particulars, but what he learned was not calculated to diminish his ardor in the cause.[535]

The accounts on the British side are almost equally numerous, including the official reports of Gage, Percy, and Smith, already referred to. General Gage sent (April 29)[536] to Gov. Trumbull, of Connecticut, a statement, which was printed at the time in a handbill as a Circumstantial Account, and he refers to it "as taken from gentlemen of indisputable honor and veracity, who were eye-witnesses of all the transactions of that day."[537]

In 1779 there was printed at Boston a pamphlet containing General Gage's instructions to Brown and De Bernière,[538] from a MS. left in Boston by a British officer, to which is appended an account of the "transactions" of April 19, with a list of the killed, wounded, and missing,[539] and in 1775 there was printed at London a contemporary summary in The Rise, Progress, and Present State of the Dispute.[540]

The question of firing the first shot at Lexington was studiously examined at the time, each side claiming exemption from the charge of being the aggressor, and Frothingham[541] and Hudson[542] collate the evidence. It seems probable that the British fired first, though by design or accident a musket on the provincial side flashed in the pan before the regulars fired.[543] That some irregular return of the British fire was made seems undeniable, though at the time of the semi-centennial celebration certain writers, anxious to establish for Concord the credit of first forcibly resisting the British arms, denied that claim on the part of the neighboring town. The controversy resulted in Elias Phinney's Battle of Lexington, published in 1825,[544] with depositions of survivors, taken in 1822; and Ezra Ripley's Fight at Concord, published in 1827.[545] The parts borne by the men of other towns have had their special commemorations.[546]

PART OF EMERSON'S RECORD IN HIS DIARY, APRIL 19, 1775 (from Whitney's Literature of the Nineteenth of April).

PERCY.

From Andrews's Hist. of the War, Lond., 1785, vol. ii. A portrait engraved by V. Green is noted in J. C. Smith's Brit. Mezzotint Portraits, ii. 576. Cf. also Evelyns in America, 304; Memorial Hist. of Boston, iii. 57, 58; "Percy family and Alnwick Castle" in Jewitt's Stately Homes of England. In the Third Report of the Hist. MSS. Commission there are (1872) various papers of the Percy family touching the American war. Some of these papers have been procured from England by the Rev. E. G. Porter, of Lexington. Several letters of Percy, addressed to Bishop Percy, sold not long since at a sale of the Bishop's MSS., were bought by a London dealer, and are now in the Boston Public Library. They are quoted from in this and other chapters. On July 30, 1776, a picture of Percy was placed in Guildhall, London, by the magistrates of the city and liberties of Westminster, in token of his services in America. Cf. also Doyle's Official Baronage, ii. 670.

PERCY.

From Murray's Impartial Hist. of the present War, i. 382.

B. Battle of Bunker Hill, June 17, 1775.—There are four sufficient authorities for tracing all that is known respecting the battle of Bunker Hill, even to minute particulars, especially with respect to the testimony of those who, from nearness to the event, or from opportunity, are best entitled to be considered in the matter. The earliest master of the literature and records of the fight was Richard Frothingham, who through life was identified with the story of Bunker Hill, and who has on the whole, in his Siege of Boston and in his Life of Joseph Warren, given us the amplest details.[547] His latest gleanings were included in The Battlefield of Bunker hill: with a relation of the action by William Prescott, and illustrative documents. A paper communicated to the Massachusetts Historical Society, June 10, 1875, with additions. (Boston: printed for the author. 1876. 46 pp.)[548]

In June, 1868, Henry B. Dawson, in a special number of the Historical Magazine, entered into an elaborate collation of nearly all that had been published up to that time, making his references in footnotes, which serve as a bibliography of the subject.[549]

LEXINGTON GREEN.

From the Massachusetts Magazine (Boston, 1794). Four views (12 X 18 inches, on copper) of different aspects of the day's fight were drawn by Earl, a portrait painter, and engraved by Amos Doolittle shortly afterward. They are reproduced in the centennial edition of Jonas Clark's Narrative; in Frank Moore's Ballad History; in Potter's American Monthly, April, 1875; in Antique views of y^e Town of Boston; and separately, with an explanatory text, by E. G. Porter, as Four Drawings of the Engagement at Lexington and Concord (Boston, 1883). The view of the attack on Lexington Green was drawn from Daniel Harrington's house (see plan), and was reduced by Doolittle himself for Barber's History of New Haven. (W. S. Baker's Amer. Engravers, Philad., 1875, p. 45.) It has also been redrawn several times by others. See Lossing's Field-Book, i. 421, 524; Hudson's Lexington, p. 183; the Centennial edition of Phinney, etc.

Earl and Doolittle were soldiers of a New Haven company, which reached Cambridge a few days after the fight.

There is a view of Concord taken in 1776 in the Massachusetts Mag., July, 1794, which is reproduced in Whitney's Literature of the Nineteenth of April.

There is an early but fanciful picture of the "Journée de Lexington" in François Godefroy's Recueil d'Estampes representant les different événemens de la guerre qui a procuré l'indépendence aux États Unis de l'Amérique.

An account of Jonathan Harrington, the last survivor of the fight, is in Potter's Amer. Monthly, April, 1875, and in Jones's New York during the Revolution, i. 552.

In fiction, mention need only be made of Cooper's Lionel Lincoln, and Hawthorne's Septimus Felton.

In 1875 there was an exhibition of relics of the fight at Lexington, and some of them are still retained in the library hall. A printed list of them was issued in 1875. A musket taken from a British soldier was bequeathed by Theodore Parker to the State of Massachusetts, and now hangs in the Senate Chamber. Cf. Hist. Mag., iv. 202 (July, 1880).

In 1875 Justin Winsor published first in the Bulletin of the Boston Public Library a bibliographical commentary on all printed matter respecting the battle, grouping his notes by their affinities; and this was enlarged in the Celebration of the Centennial Anniversary of the Battle, published by the city of Boston in 1875; and still further augmented in a section of his Handbook of the American Revolution (Boston, 1879).

In 1880 James F. Hunnewell, in his Bibliography of Charlestown and Bunker Hill (Boston), grouped everything alphabetically under such main headings as monographs, maps and plans, contemporary newspapers, American statements, British accounts, French accounts, anniversaries. His enumeration is more nearly exhaustive than Mr. Winsor's, though this may still supplement it in some particulars.

The earliest printed accounts which we have of the battle are in the newspapers, and of these a full enumeration is given by Mr. Hunnewell.[550]

What may be called the official statements on the American side were speedily placed before the public, but, strange to say, neither of the two officers who have been held to have directed the conduct of the Americans vouched for any of the early accounts. From Putnam we have nothing. Prescott made no statement, which has come down to us, earlier than in a letter addressed to John Adams, Aug. 25, 1775,[551] though he is said to have assisted the Rev.

RICHARD FROTHINGHAM.

After a steel plate kindly furnished by Mr. Frothingham's son, Mr. Thomas Goddard Frothingham. There is a memoir of Mr. Frothingham, by Charles Deane, in the Mass. Hist. Soc. Proceedings, Feb., 1885, and separately. Mr. Frothingham was born Jan. 31, 1812, and died Jan. 29, 1880. Remarks made to the society at the time of his death are in the Proc. (Feb., 1880), xvii. 329. Cf. R. C. Winthrop's Speeches (1878, etc.), p. 125.

Peter Thacher in a narrative which was prepared within a fortnight, Thacher himself having observed the fight from the Malden side of Mystick River.[552] This Thacher MS. was made the basis of the account which the Committee of Safety, by order of the provincial congress, prepared for sending to England.[553] There have been preserved a large number of letters and statements written by eye-witnesses or by those near at hand, some of them conveying particulars essential to the understanding of the day's events, but most adding little beyond increasing our perceptions of the feelings of the hour.[554]

After the painting belonging to Yale College. Cf. photograph in Kingsley's Yale College, i. 102; engravings in Hollister's Connecticut, i. 234, and Amer. Quart. Reg., viii. 31, 193; and memoir in Sparks's Amer. Biog., xvi. 3, by J. L. Kingsley.

To these may be added various diaries and orderly-books, which are of little distinctive value.[555] There are other accounts, written at a later period, in which personal recollections are assisted by study of the recitals of others, and chief among them are the narrative in Thacher's Military Journal (Boston, 1823), where the account is entered as of July, 1775, and chapter xix. of General James Wilkinson's Memoirs (1816), embodying what he learned in going over the field in March, 1776, with Stark and Reed. Col. John Trumbull saw the smoke of the fight from the Roxbury lines, and gave an outline narrative in his Autobiography (1841).[556] The account in General Heath's Memoirs (Boston, 1798) is short.[557] A few of the earlier general histories of the war were written by those on the American side who had some advantages by reason of friendly or other relations with the actors.[558] Of the still later accounts, Frothingham and Dawson have already been referred to for their bibliographical accompaniments. The diversity of evidence[559] respecting almost all cardinal points of the battle's history has necessarily entailed more or less of the controversial spirit in all who have written upon it, but for thoroughness of research and a fair discrimination combined, the labors of Frothingham must be conceded to be foremost. Dawson is elaborate, and he reveals more than Frothingham the processes of his collations, but his spirit is not so tempered by discretion, and an air of flippant controversy often pervades his narrative. Of the more recent general historians it is only necessary to mention Bancroft[560] and Carrington. The former gave to it three chapters in his original edition, in 1858, which, by a little condensation, make a single one in his final revision, but without material change.[561] The account in Carrington[562] is intended to be distinctively a military criticism.[563]

The troops of Connecticut[564] and New Hampshire[565] were the only ones engaged beside those of Massachusetts.

The question of who commanded during the day has been the subject of continued controversy, arising from the too large claims of partisans. Though there is much conflict of contemporary evidence, it seems well established that Col. William Prescott commanded at the redoubt, and no one questioned his right. He also sent out the party which in the beginning protected his flank towards the Mystick; but when Stark, with his New Hampshire men, came up to strengthen that party, his authority seems to have been generally recognized, and he held the rail fence there as long as he could to cover the retreat of Prescott's men from the redoubt. Putnam, the ranking officer on the field, Warren disclaiming all right to command, withdrew men with entrenching tools from Prescott, and planned to throw up earthworks on the higher eminence, now known as Bunker Hill proper, and near the end of the retreat he assumed a general command, and directed the fortifying of Prospect Hill. It is not apparent, then, that any officer, previous to this last stage of the fight, can be said to have had general command in all parts of the field. The discussion of the claims of Putnam and Prescott has resulted in a large number of monographs, and has formed a particular feature in many of the general accounts of the battle, the mention of some of which has for this reason been deferred till they could be placed in the appended note.[566]

A list of officers in the battle, not named in Frothingham's Siege, is given in the N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg., April, 1873; and an English list of the Yankee officers in the force about Boston in June, 1775, is in Ibid., July, 1874. The Lives of participants and observers add occasionally some items to the story.[567]

This follows the reproduction of an engraving in J. C. Smith's Brit. Mezzotint Portraits, p. 1716, which is inscribed: Israel Putnam, Esq., Major-General of the Connecticut forces, and Commander-in-chief at the engagement on Buncker's-Hill, near Boston, 17 June, 1775. Published by C. Shepherd, 9 Sep^r 1775. J. Wilkinson pinxt. (Cf. Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc., xix. 102.) There is a French engraving, representing him in cocked hat, looking down and aside, and subscribed "Israel Putnam, Eq^re., major général des Troupes de Connecticut. Il commandait en chef à l'affaire de Bunckes hill près Boston, le 17 Juin, 1775." Col. J. Trumbull made a sketch of Putnam, which has been engraved by W. Humphreys (National Portrait Gallery, N. Y., 1834) and by Thomas Gimbrede.

Cf. portraits in Murray's Impartial Hist. (1778), i. 334; Hollister's Connecticut; Irving's Washington, illus. ed., i. 413; and Geschichte der Kriege in und ausser Europa (Nürnberg, 1778).

For lives of Putnam, see Sabin, xvi. no. 66,804, etc. For his birthplace, see Appleton's Journal, xi. 321; Miss Larned's Windham County, Conn. Cf. B. J. Lossing in Harper's Monthly, xii. 577; Evelyns in America, 273; R. H. Stoddard in Nat. Mag., xii. 97.

JOSEPH WARREN.

After a copperplate by J. Norman in An Impartial Hist. of the War in America (Boston, 1781), vol. ii. p. 210. The best known picture of Warren is a small canvas by Copley, belonging to Dr. John Collins Warren, of Boston, which has been often engraved, and is given in mezzotint by H. W. Smith in Frothingham's Life of Warren. The picture in Faneuil Hall is painted after this, and Thomas Illman has engraved that copy. A larger canvas by Copley, painted not long before that artist left Boston for England, is owned by Dr. Buckminster Brown, of Boston, and was engraved for the first time in the Mem. Hist. of Boston, iii. 60, where will be found accounts of various contemporary prints and memorials of Warren (pp. 59, 61, 142, 143), including his house at Roxbury, the manuscript of his Massacre Oration, etc. Cf. Frothingham's Warren, p. 546; Hist. Mag., Dec., 1857; Loring's Hundred Boston Orators, p. 67; Mrs. J. B. Brown's Stories of General Warren; Life of Dr. John Warren; the Warren Genealogy; Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc., Sept., 1866. The earliest eulogy was that by Perez Morton in 1776 (Loring's Hundred Boston Orators, 327; Niles's Principles and Acts, 1876, p. 30), and the earliest memoir of any extent was that by A. H. Everett, in Sparks's Amer. Biography (vol. x.). There are reminiscences in the N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg., xii. 113, 234, which were based by Gen. William H. Sumner on some letters published by him in 1825 in the Boston Patriot, when, as adjutant-general of the State, he arranged for the appearance of the Bunker Hill veterans in the celebration of that year, and derived some reminiscences from them respecting Warren's appearance and action during the fight. All other accounts of Warren, however, have been eclipsed by Frothingham's Life of Warren (Boston, 1865). In the Boston Medical and Surgical Journal (June 17, 1875), Dr. John Jeffries (son of the surgeon of the British army who saw Warren's body on the field) published a paper on his death. Cf. also R. J. Speirr in Potter's Amer. Monthly, v. 571; Frothingham's Warren, pp. 519, 523; Barry's Massachusetts, i. 37, and references.

The grateful intentions expressed by the Massachusetts House of Representatives (April 4, 1776), by the Continental Congress (April 8, 1777; Sept. 6, 1778; July 1, 1780,—see Journals of Congress), and by the Congress of the United States (Jan. 30, 1846,—Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc., ii. 337), have never been carried out. Benedict Arnold manifested a special interest in the welfare of Warren's children (N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg., April, 1857, p. 122). The Freemasons erected a pillar to his memory on the battlefield in 1794, which disappeared when the present obelisk was begun in 1825. There is a view of the pillar in the Analectic Mag., March, 1818, and in Snow's Boston, 309. Cf. Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc., xiv. 65. A statue of Warren, by Henry Dexter, was placed in a pavilion near the obelisk in 1857. Cf. G. W. Warren's Hist. of the Bunker Hill Monument Association; Frothingham's Warren, p. 547.

Among the anniversary discourses upon the battle, a few will bear reading. The earliest was by Josiah Bartlett in 1794, published by B. Edes, in Boston, the next year. Daniel Webster made a famous address at the laying of the corner-stone of the monument in 1825, which can be found in his Works, i. 59. (Cf. Analectic Mag., vol. xi.; A. Levasseur's Lafayette en Amérique, Paris, 1829.) The same orator, at the completion of the monument in 1843, embodied little of historical interest in his Address. (Works, i. 89.[568]) Alexander H. Everett's Address in 1836 was subsequently inwoven in his Life of Warren. The Rev. George E. Ellis began his conspicuous labors in this field in his discourse in 1841. Edward Everett spoke in 1850 (Orations, etc., iii. p. 3), and Gen. Charles Devens, at the Centennial in 1875, delivered an oration, which was published by the city of Boston. The most noteworthy address since that time was that of Robert C. Winthrop at the unveiling of the statue of Colonel William Prescott, June 17, 1881.[569] This statue, of which an engraving will be found in the Mem. Hist. of Boston (iv. 410), stands near the base of the monument.[570]

We turn now to the accounts on the British side. The orderly-books of General Howe are preserved among Lord Dorchester's (Carleton's) Papers in the Royal Institution, London. Sparks made extracts from them, now in no. xlv. of the Sparks MSS. in Harvard College library. Extracts relating to the dispositions for the day of the battle, and for subsequent days, are given by Ellis (1843) p. 88.[571] Cf. Mag. of Amer. Hist., 1885, p. 214. The more immediate English notes and comments on the battle can be best grouped in a note.[572]

During 1775 there were two English accounts, aiming at something like historical perspective. One of these was, very likely, by Edmund Burke, and was in the Annual Register (p. 133, etc.). The other was An Impartial and Authentic Narrative of the Battle fought on the 17th of June, 1775, between his Britannic Majesty's Troops and the American Provincial Army on Bunker's Hill near Charles Town in New England. The author was John Clark, a first lieutenant of marines. He gives a speech of Howe to his men, representing that it was delivered just as he advanced to the attack, but this and much else in the book are considered of doubtful authenticity.[573]

In 1780 there appeared in the London Chronicle some letters by Israel Mauduit, which were republished the same year as Three letters to Lord Viscount Howe: added, Remarks on the battle of Bunker's Hill (London, 1780), which in a second edition (1781) reads additionally in the title, To which is added a comparative view of the Conduct of Lord Cornwallis and General Howe. There was among the Chalmers' MSS. (Thorpe's Supplemental Catal., 1843, no. 660) a writing entitled Some particulars of the battle of Bunker's Hill, the situation of the ground, etc. (8 pp., 1784), which Chalmers calls a "most curious paper in the handwriting of Israel Mauduit, found among his pamphlets, Jan. 23, 1789."

In 1784 William Carter's Genuine Detail of the Royal and American Armies appeared in London. Carter was a lieutenant in the Fortieth Foot, and his book was seemingly reissued in 1785, with a new title-page. (Brinley, no. 1,789; Stevens, Bibl. Amer., 1885, nos. 80, 81; Harvard Coll. lib., 6351.16.)

Note.—The fac-simile on this page is of a handbill, printed in Boston, giving the tory side of the fight at Bunker Hill,—after an original in the library of the Mass. Hist. Society.

Note.—This sketch of Bunker Hill Battle, made for Lord Rawdon, follows a tracing of the original belonging to Dr. Emmet of New York, furnished to me by Mr. Benson J. Lossing. A finished drawing from this sketch is given in the Mem. Hist. of Boston, vol. iii. Cf. Harper's Mag. xlvii., p. 18. The spire in the foreground is that of the West Church, which stood where Dr. Bartol's church, in Cambridge Street, Boston, now stands, showing that the sketcher was on Beacon hill, 138 feet above the water. The smoke from the frigate to the right of the spire rises against the higher hill where Putnam endeavored to rally the retreating provincials. This hill is 110 feet above the water, and about one mile and a half distant from the spectator. One hundred and thirty rods to the right of this summit is the crown of the lower or Breed's Hill, where the redoubt was, which is 62 feet above the sea. Dr. Emmet secured this picture and another of the slope of the hill, taken after the battle, and showing the broken fences (Mem. Hist. of Boston, iii. 88), at the sale of the effects of the Marquis of Hastings, who was a descendant of Lord Rawdon, then on Gage's staff (Harper's Monthly Mag., 1875). The earliest engraved picture of the battle is one cut by Roman, which was published the same year, and appeared also in Sept., 1775, on a reduced scale, in the Pennsylvania Magazine. It has been reproduced in Frothingham's Centennial: Battle of Bunker Hill (1875), in Moore's Ballad History, and in other of the Centennial memorials. In 1781 a poem by George Cockings, The American War (London), had a somewhat extraordinary picture, which has been reproduced in Gay's Pop. Hist. U. S., iii. 401, by S. A. Drake, and others. In 1786 Col. John Trumbull painted his well-known picture of the battle, which has been often engraved. (Cf. Trumbull's Autobiography; N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg., xv.; Tuckerman's Book of the Artists; Harper's Magazine, Nov., 1879.) Trumbull claimed that the following figures in his picture were portraits: Warren, Putnam, Howe, Clinton, Small, and the two Pitcairns.

In the Mass. Magazine, Sept., 1789, there is a view of Charlestown, showing Bunker's and Breed's hills, with their original contours. It is reproduced in Mem. Hist. Boston, iii. 554, with a note upon other early views. Frothingham (Siege, p. 121) gives one from an early manuscript which closely resembles the topography of the Rawdon sketch; and again (Centennial, etc.) another which is in fact the perspective sketch of the town at the edge of Price's view of Boston (1743), converted into a panoramic picture (Mem. Hist. of Boston, ii. 329).

The Gentleman's Mag., Feb., 1790, has a view of Charlestown, with the tents of the British army on the hill, taken after the battle, and from Copp's Hill. It shows the wharves and ruins of the town. (Cf. note in Mem. Hist. Boston, iii. 88.)

The account of the loyalist Jones (N. Y. during the Rev., i. 52) has his usual twist of vision, though he is severe on Gage for "taking the bull by the horns" in making an attack in front.

CHARLESTOWN PENINSULA, 1775.

Sketched from a plan by Montresor, showing the redoubt erected by the British, after June 17, on the higher eminence of Bunker Hill. The original is in the library of Congress, where is a plan on a large scale of this principal redoubt.

The long list of general histories on the British side, detailing the events of the battle, begins with Murray's Impartial Hist. of the War (London, 1778; Newcastle, 1782), and is made up during the rest of that century by the Hist. of the War published at Dublin (1779-85); Hall's Civil War in America (1780); The Detail and Conduct of the Amer. War (1780); Andrews's Hist. of the War (1785, vol. i. 301,—quoted at length by Ryerson, Loyalists, i. 461); Stedman, Hist. Amer. War (London, 1794, vol. i. 125). The best of the later historians is Mahon (Hist. of England, vi.), who was forced to admit, when pressed upon the question, that the American claims of victory, which he says they have always held, appear only in the reports of later British tourists (vol. vi., App. xxix.). Lecky, in his brief account (England in the Eighteenth Century, iii. 463), makes an intention of Gage to fortify the Charlestown and not the Dorchester heights the incentive to the American occupation of the former. Edw. Bernard's History of England (London) has a curious "View of the Attack on Bunker's Hill, with the burning of Charlestown."

Something confirmatory, rather than of original value, can be gained from the histories of various regiments which took part in the battle, as detailed in the series of Historical Records of such regiments.[574]

The battle almost immediately found commemoration in British ballads (Hist. Mag., ii. 58; v. 251; Hale's Hundred Years Ago, p. 7), and the slain were commemorated in elegiac verses, as in M. M. Robinson's To a young lady, on the death of her brother, slain in the late engagement at Boston (London, 1776). The same year there appeared at Philadelphia The Battle of Bunker's Hill, a dramatic piece in five acts, in heroic measure, by a gentleman of Maryland.

Note.—The references in the corner of this cut, too fine to be easily read in this reduced fac-simile, are as follows:—

"A A. First position, where the troops remained until reinforcements arrived.

B B. Second position.

C C C. Ground on which the different regiments marched to form the line.

D D. Direction in which the attack was made upon the redoubt and breastwork.

E E. Position of a part of the 47th and marines, to silence the fire of a barn at E.

F. First position of the cannon.

G. Second position of the cannon in advancing with the grenadiers, but stopped by the marsh.

H. Breastwork formed of pickets, hay, stones, etc., with the pieces of cannon.

I I. Light infantry advancing along the shore to force the right of the breastwork H.

L L. The "Lively" and "Falcon" hauled close to shore, to rake the low grounds before the troops advanced.

M M. Gondolas that fired on the rebels in their retreat.

N. Battery of cannon, howitzers, and mortars on Copp's Hill, that battered the redoubt and set fire to Charlestown.

O O O. The rebels behind all the stone walls, trees, and brush-wood, and their numbers uncertain, having constantly large columns to reinforce them during the action.

P. Place from whence the grenadiers received a very heavy fire.

Q. Place of the fifty-second regiment on the night of the 17th.

R. Forty-seventh regiment, in Charlestown, on the night of the 17th.

S. Detachments in the mill and two storehouses.

T. Breastwork thrown up by the remainder of the troops on the night of the 17th.

Note. The distance from Boston to Charlestown is about 550 yards."

Its author is said to be Hugh Henry Brackenridge, and the frontispiece, "The Death of Warren", by Norman, is held to be the earliest engraving in British America by a native artist (Hunnewell, p. 13; Brinley, no. 1,787; Sabin, ii. 7,184; xiv. 58,640). In 1779 there was printed at Danvers, America Invincible, an heroic poem, in two books: a Battle at Bunker Hill, by an officer of rank in the Continental army (Hunnewell, p. 13). In 1781 an anonymous poem was published in London, known later to be the production of George Cockings, and called The American War, in which the names of the officers who have distinguished themselves during the war are introduced (Brinley, no. 1,788; Hunnewell, p. 14). Of later use of the battle in fiction, it is only necessary to name Cooper's novel of Lionel Lincoln and O. W. Holmes's Grandmother's Story of Bunker Hill Battle (Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc., 1875, p. 33).

The chief enumerations which have been heretofore made of the plans of the battle of Bunker Hill are by Frothingham, in Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc., xiv. 53; by Hunnewell in his Bibliog. of Charlestown, p. 17; and by Winsor in the Mem. Hist. of Boston, iii. (introduction). The earliest rude sketches are by Stiles in his diary (Dawson, p. 393), and one formed by printer's rules in Rivington's Gazetteer, Aug. 3, 1775 (Frothingham's Siege, p. 397, and Dawson, p. 390). Montresor, of the British engineers, very soon made a survey of the field, and this was used by Lieutenant Page in drawing a plan of the action, which he carried to England with him when, on account of wounds received while acting as an aid to Howe, he was given leave of absence (Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc., June, 1875, p. 56). In the Faden collection (nos. 25-30) of maps in the library of Congress there are Page's rough and finished plans, drawn before the British works on the hill were begun, and also plans by Montresor and R. W., of the Welsh Fusiliers. Page's plan, as engraved, was issued in London in 1776, and called A Plan of the Action at Bunker's Hill.[575]

Page's, however, was not the first engraved. One "by an officer on the spot" was published in London, Nov. 27, 1775, called Plan of the battle on Bunker's Hill. Fought on the 17th of June, which was issued as a broadside, with Burgoyne's letter to Lord Stanley on the same sheet. The central position of the Americans is called "Warren's redoubt." This is reproduced in F. Moore's Ballad History of the Revolution.

Another contemporary British plan—discovered probably "in the baggage of a British officer", after the royal troops left Boston in March, 1776, but not brought to light till forty years later, when it was mentioned in a newspaper in Wilkesbarre, Penn., as having been found in an old drawer—was one made by Henry de Bernière, of the Tenth Royal Infantry, on nearly the same scale as Page's, but less accurately.

It was engraved in 1818 in the Analectic Magazine (Philad., p. 150), and a fac-simile of that engraving is annexed. The text accompanying it states that its general accuracy had been vouched for by Governor Brooks, General Dearborn, Dr. A. Dexter, Deacon Thos. Miller, John Kettell, Dr. Bartlett, the Hon. James Winthrop, and Mr. [Judge] Prescott. General Dearborn and Deacon Miller thought the rail fence too far in the rear of the redoubt, having been really nearly in the line of it. Judge Winthrop and Dr. Bartlett thought the map in this particular correct. There was the same division of belief regarding the cannon behind the fence, Dearborn and Miller believing there were none there, Brooks and Winthrop holding the contrary. Other witnesses represented to the editor of the Magazine that there was no interval between the breastwork and the fence, but that an imperfect line of defence connected the redoubt with the Mystick shore, as represented in Stedman's (Page's) map.[576]

In the Portfolio (March, 1818) General Dearborn criticised the plan (Dawson, p. 406), and, using the same plate in his separate issue of his comments, he imposed in red his ideas of the position of the works, and this was in turn criticised by Governor Brooks.[577] Mr. G. G. Smith made a (plan) Sketch of the Battle of Bunker Hill by a British Officer (Boston, 1843), which grew out of the plan and the comments on it. Bernière's plan was also used by Colonel Swett as the basis of the one which he published in his History of the Battle of Bunker Hill (1828, 1826, 1827), which has been frequently copied (Ellis, Lossing, etc.). The latest attempt to map the phases of the action critically is by Carrington in his Battles of the Revolution (p. 112), who gives an eclectic plan. Plans adopting the features of earlier ones are in the English translation of Botta's War of Independence, Grant's British Battles (ii. 144). A plan of the present condition of the ground, by Thomas W. Davis, superposing the line of the American works, is given in the Bunker Hill Monument Association's Proceedings (1876). A map of Charlestown in 1775 with a plan of the battle was prepared and published in 1875 by James E. Stone. A plan of the works as reconstructed by the British, and deserted by them in March, 1776, is given in Carter's Genuine detail, etc. (London, 1784), which is reproduced in Frothingham's Siege, p. 330. Other MS. plans of their works on both hills are in the Faden maps in the library of Congress.

Before the war closed a plan was engraved by Norman, a Boston engraver, which is the earliest to appear near the scene itself. This was a Plan of the town of Boston with the attack on Bunker's Hill, in the peninsula of Charlestown, on June 17, 1775 (measuring 11-1/2 × 7 inches), which is, however, of no topographical value as respects the action. It appeared in Murray's Impartial History (1778), i. p. 430, and in An Impartial History of the War in America (Boston, 1781, vol. i.), and a reduced fac-simile of it is annexed.[578]

C. The American Camp.—A variety of journals and diaries have been preserved, the best known of which is that of Dr. Thacher, a surgeon on Prospect Hill.[579]

The daily life of the Cambridge camp is best seen in the letters sent from it, and foremost in interest among such are those of Washington.[580] From the Roxbury camp there are letters of General Thomas in the Thomas Papers, where is one of Dr. John Morgan, the medical director. Several from Jedediah Huntington are preserved in the Trumbull Papers, and are printed in the Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., xlix.[581] The principal letters from the Winter Hill camp are those of General Sullivan,[582] and a few have been printed written at the Prospect Hill camp.[583]

Something of the spirit prevailing in Watertown, where the Provincial Congress was sitting, can be seen in the letters of James Warren and Samuel Cooper.[584]

There are in the library of the Amer. Antiq. Soc. at Worcester several orderly-books of the siege,[585] and others are preserved elsewhere.[586]

D. The British Camp.—The condition of Boston during the siege must be learned from various sources. The Boston News-Letter was still published, but numbers of it are very scarce for this period, and no other of the Boston newspapers continued to be published in the town.[587] It was a convenient vehicle for the British generals, and any morsel of news likely to be distasteful to the patriots, like the intercepted correspondence of Washington and John Adams, was pretty sure to reach the American lines through its columns. The correspondence of the generals is preserved in the British Archives and in the papers at the Royal Institution (London), and occasionally some few letters, like those of Percy in the Boston Public Library, have been found elsewhere. It is charged that Gage's papers were stolen in Boston.[588] Some new glimpses were got when Fonblanque published his Life of Burgoyne.[589] The best accounts of the succession of events in the town and the daily life are found in Dr. Ellis's "Chronicles of the Siege",[590] and in Mr. Horace E. Scudder's "Life in Boston during the Siege", a chapter in the Memorial Hist. of Boston, vol. iii.,[591] which may be consulted (p. 154) for various sources respecting the details of the privations and amusements of the people and the garrison, and of the vicissitudes of its buildings and landmarks.[592] An account of the British works in Boston is given in Frothingham's Siege of Boston, and the Mem. Hist. Boston, iii. 79. The current record of the outposts, etc., is noted in Moore's Diary of the Rev., 109, etc. Carrington (Battles, 154) refers to a MS. narrative of experiences in the town by one Edw. Stow. Some of the correspondence of the Boston selectmen with Thomas, at Roxbury, is in the Thomas Papers. It is, however, to the diaries, letters, and orderly-books which have been preserved that we must go for the details of life in the beleaguered town.[593]

E. Boston Evacuated.—The letters of Washington[594] best enable us to follow the movements, but they may be supplemented by other contemporary accounts.[595]

Howe's despatch to Dartmouth, dated Nantasket Roads, is in Dawson, i. 94.[596] His conduct of the siege is criticised in A view of the evidence relative to the Conduct of the American War (1779). Contemporary dissatisfaction was expressed in an ironical congratulatory poem published in London (Sabin, iv., 15,476).

One Crean Brush,[597] acting under orders of Howe, endeavored to carry off the merchandise from the stores of the town, so far as he could, on a vessel put at his disposal. Howe's proclamation in his favor is in fac-simile in the Mem. Hist. of Boston, iii. 97. Brush's vessel was later captured by Manly (Evacuation Memorial, 166). Similar experience in trying to escape with his merchandise was suffered by Jolley Allen, as portrayed in his Account of a part of his sufferings and losses, ed. by C. C. Smith, given in Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc., Feb., 1878, and separately. Allen's narrative was reprinted in the spelling of the original MS. in An Account of a part of the sufferings and losses of Jolley Allen, a native of London, with a preface and Notes by Mrs. Frances Mary Stoddard (Boston, 1883). An inventory of the stores left by the British is in the Siege of Boston, 406.[598] In the cabinet of this society is a handbill adopted by the freeholders of Boston, Nov. 18 [1776?], calling upon all who had suffered in property in Boston since March, 1775, to report the same to a committee.[599]

Washington's instructions (April 4, 1776) to Ward are in the printed Heath Papers, P. 4. The Mass. legislature, April 30, 1776, ordered beacons to be set at Cape Ann, Marblehead, and Blue Hill, ready to be fired in case of the enemy's reappearing, which was for a long time dreaded. Ward writes to Washington of his measures in progress.[600]

The correspondence of John Adams and John Winthrop (Mass. Hist. Coll., xlv.) shows constant anxiety lest the defences should not be prepared in case of need.[601]

SIEGE OF BOSTON, 1776.

The westerly half of the map in the octavo atlas of Marshall's Washington, which is a reduction of the map in the earlier quarto atlas (1804). It is reproduced in the French translations of Marshall and of Botta.

The cut on the title of the present volume represents one side of the medal given by Congress to Washington, to commemorate his raising the siege of Boston.[602]

F. Maps of the Siege of Boston.—Plans of Boston and its neighborhood, including its harbor, for the illustration of the siege of Boston, are numerous, and the account of them given in the Mem. Hist. of Boston (iii., introd.) is in the main followed in the present enumeration, which divides them into those of American, English, French, and German origin, and adheres as far as possible to the order of publication in each group.

The earliest American is the 1769 (or last) edition of what is known as Price's edition of Bonner's map of Boston, which had done service since 1722 by successive changes in the plate, this last issue showing Hancock's Wharf, and "Esqr. Hancock's seat" on Beacon Street.[603] This map sufficed for local use till the events of 1775 induced new interest in the topography, when the earliest response came from Philadelphia, where C. Lownes engraved A new plan of Boston Harbour from an actual survey, for the Pennsylvania Magazine. It presented a reminder of the great event of the year in its "N. B. Charlestown burnt, June 17, 1775, by the Regulars." There is another Draught of the Harbour of Boston and the adjacent towns and roads, a manuscript, dated 1775, among the Belknap Papers, i. 84, in the cabinet of the Mass. Hist. Society. The same Pennsylvania Magazine, the next month (July, 1775), gave as engraved by Aitkins A new and correct plan of the town of Boston and Provincial Camp. The town seems to be taken from a plan which had appeared in the Gentleman's Magazine (London) the previous January; but in one corner was added a plan of the circumvallating lines of the besieging army.[604] Later in the season two other plans were made, showing the American lines, which were not published, however, till long after. One is given in Force's American Archives, 4th series, vol. iii.,[605] and the other was made by Col. John Trumbull, in Sept., 1775, which was published in his Autobiography in 1841.[606] Of about the same time is another very small Plan of Boston and its environs, showing the circumvallating lines, which is in one corner of a large Map of the Seat of Civil War in America, engraved by B. Romans, and dedicated to Hancock. There is also, in the library of the Mass. Hist. Society, a rude plan of the harbor and vicinity, showing the positions of the provincials, which are reckoned at 20,000, while the royal forces are put at 8,000. I find no other American plan till Norman's, in 1781, reproduced on another page; and not another till The Seat of the late War at Boston appeared in the Universal Asylum and Columbian Magazine, July, 1789, p. 444, but this is a rather scant map of the country as far inland as Worcester. Gordon had the year before this given a map in his American Revolution (London, 1788) based on English sources; but it has been the foundation of most of the eclectic maps since published in this country.[607]

In 1822 a Mr. Finch printed in Silliman's Journal an account of the traces then remaining of the earthworks of the siege, both American and British.[608] There is an enumeration of the different sections of the lines, within and without Boston, in the Mem. Hist. Boston (vol. iii. 104).[609]

The earliest English plan of this period is one called A plan of Boston and Charlestown from a drawing made in 1771, which occupies the margin of a larger map, engraved for The Town and Country Magazine in 1776, later to be mentioned. The Catalogue of the King's Maps (British Museum) shows a colored plan of Boston and vicinity (1773) in the centre of a large sheet, with marginal views (later to be described).

In 1774 a Plan of the town of Boston made part of a Chart of the Coast of New England, which appeared in the London Magazine, April, 1774, and in The American Atlas, issued by Thomas Jefferys in London, in 1776. This map seems to be the model of a New and accurate Plan of the town of Boston, which is engraved in the corner of A Map of the most inhabited part of New England, by Thomas Jefferys, Nov. 29, 1774, usually also found in The American Atlas (1776, nos. 15 and 16). This map is found with the date 1755, even after changes of a later date had been made in the plate.[610] The original map has also a marginal plan of Boston harbor (Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc., September, 1864).

The earliest English map of 1775 is one which appeared in the Gentleman's Magazine (January, 1775), though it is dated Feb. 1, 1775. It shows the town and harbor.[611]

In the June number of the Gentleman's Magazine is a "map of the country one hundred miles round Boston, in order to show the situation and march of the troops, as well provincial as regulars, which are now within sight of each other, and are hourly expected to engage."

In June, 1775, was also made a not very accurate map of the town and its environs, which was published in London, Aug. 28, to satisfy the eagerness for a map of the region to which the news of the battle of Bunker Hill had turned all eyes. It is to be found in the first volume of Almon's Remembrancer, and is reproduced herewith. A few weeks after the fight at Charlestown there was probably made in Boston the MS. plan of Boston and circumjacent Country, showing the present situation of the king's troops and the rebel intrenchments. It is dated July 25, 1775, and is owned by Dr. Charles Deane.[612]

The largest chart which we have of Boston harbor of this period is dated August 5, 1775, and was the work of Samuel Holland, the surveyor-general of the Northern colonies, who was for some years employed on a coast survey.[613] It takes in Nahant, Nantasket, and Cambridge, and was based principally on the surveys of George Callendar (1769).[614] When Des Barres included it in his Atlantic Neptune (part iii., no. 6, 1780-1783), he marked in the besieging lines, and dated it Dec. 1, 1781, and in this state Des Barres also used it in his Coast and Harbors of New England.[615]

A map showing thirty miles round Boston, and bearing date Aug. 14, 1775, is in the king's library (British Museum), and is signed by M. Armstrong. It has marginal statistical tables, and in the upper right-hand corner is a plan of the "action near Charlestown, 17 June, 1775."[616] There is among the Force maps in the library of Congress the MS. original of the map (sketched herewith as Boston and Charlestown, 1775), which is called A Draught of the Towns of Boston and Charlestown and the circumjacent country, shewing the works thrown up by his Majesty's Troops, and also those by the Rebels during the campaign of 1775. N. B. The rebel entrenchments are expressed as they appear from Beacon Hill.

On August 28th the British town-major in Boston, James Urquhart, licensed Henry Pelham to make a Plan of Boston with its environs. It was engraved in aquatints in London, on two sheets, and not published till June 2, 1777. Dr. Belknap, who was much troubled to find a correct plan of the town for this period, thought Pelham's was the best.[617]

BOSTON AND CHARLESTOWN, 1775.

There are among the Faden MSS. in the library of Congress two MS. maps. One is probably the best plan of Boston itself of this period, and the other the best of those of the vicinity.[618] They represent the conditions of 1775, though they were not engraved and published by William Faden in London till Oct. 1, 1777, and Oct. 1, 1778, respectively. They are both, in the main, after a survey by William Page, of the British engineers. The first is called A Plan of the Town of Boston, with the Intrenchments, etc., of his Majesty's forces in 1775, from the observations of Lieut. Page and from the plans of other gentlemen. It gives the peninsula only, with a small portion of Charlestown, and was again issued in Oct., 1778.[619] The second is Boston, its environs and harbour, with the Rebels' works raised against that town in 1775, from the observations of Lieut. Page, and from the plans of Capt. Montresor. It includes Point Alderton, Chelsea, Cambridge, and Dorchester, and there is a copy in the library of the Mass. Hist. Society.

BRITISH LINES ON BOSTON NECK, 1775-76.

This is from Page's Plan of the Town of Boston, published in London in 1777, and is accompanied by the following Key:—a, redoubt; b, block-house for cannon; c, six 24-pounders, 2 royals; d, four 9-pounders; e, six 24-pounders; f, left bastion; g, right bastion; h, h, guard-houses; i, i, traverses; k, k, magazines; l, l, abattis; m, m, m, routes-du-pols; n, block-house for musketry; o, floating battery, 2 guns; p, p, fleches, 1 sub. and 20 men. The building beyond the outer lines and near the edge of the upland is Brown's house, the scene of skirmishes during the siege (Mem. Hist. of Boston, iii. 80; Heath's Memoirs). The narrowest part of the neck was at the present Dover Street where it intersects Washington Street. The foundations of the main works at this point were laid bare in digging a drain in March, 1860. The outer works were just within Blackstone and Franklin squares. There are views of these lines in the Faden Collection in the library of Congress, dated August, 1775, probably the original of the engraved views which accompany Des Barres' coast survey, and of which there are reproductions in the Mem. Hist. of Boston, iii. 80. Cf. also Frothingham's Siege, p. 315. The same Faden Collection has a pen-and-ink plan of the lines, dated Aug., 1775 (no. 37 of the Catal.).

During the summer of 1775, John Trumbull, then an aid to General Spencer, crawled up, under cover of the tall grass, near enough to the British lines to sketch them; but a continuance of the hazardous exploit was soon rendered unnecessary by the desertion of a British artilleryman, who brought with him a rude plan of the entire work. So Trumbull says in his Autobiography, p. 22. Washington, on comparing this surreptitious sketch with the deserter's plan, found them so nearly to correspond that Trumbull thinks his own future promotion probably arose from it. Trumbull's sketch and the memorandum of the deserter "from the Welsh fusileers" seem to have been the basis of a careful drawing of the British lines, prepared apparently at headquarters in Cambridge, as it bears the handwriting of Washington's aid, Thomas Mifflin, an explanatory table of the armament in the works. This found its way into that portion of the Papers of Arthur Lee which went to the Amer. Philosophical Society in Philadelphia, and from it a reduced heliotype is given in the Mem. Hist. of Boston, iii. p. 80. Washington sent a copy of the plan, nearly duplicate, to Congress, and this is given in Force's Amer. Archives, 4th ser., i. p. 29, and is reproduced on a smaller scale in Wheildon's Siege and Evacuation of Boston, p. 34. (Cf. Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc., April, 1879, p. 62.) There are two other American drawings of the lines, of less importance. One is in the Pennsylvania Magazine for Aug., 1775, and is called An exact plan of Gen. Gage's lines on Boston Neck in America, July 31, 1775. The other is a small marginal view of The Lines thrown up on Boston neck by the ministerial army, making part of the Seat of the Civil War, by Romans. A rude powder-horn plan is noted in the Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc. (Nov., 1881), xix. 103. One of the Faden MS. plans shows a proposed star redoubt at a point outside the lines.

In October, 1775, an "Engineer at Boston", Lieut. Richard Williams, made and sent over to England a plan showing the "redoubt taken from the rebels by General Howe", the British camp on the higher summit of Bunker Hill, together with the American lines at Cambridge and Roxbury. In London it was compared with "several other curious drawings", from which additions were made, when it was published by Andrew Dury, March 12, 1776, as engraved by Jno. Lodge for the late Mr. Jefferys, and called Plan of Boston and its environs, showing the true situation of his Majesty's Army, and also those of the rebels.[620] In the same month (Oct., 1775) a Plan of Boston, with Charlestown marked as in ruins, appeared in the Gentleman's Magazine (p. 464). Another Map of Boston and Charlestown, by an English officer present at Bunker Hill, was published in London, Nov. 25, 1775. The last map made during the British occupation of Boston was An accurate map of the Country round Boston in New England, published by A. Hamilton, Jr., near St. John's Gate, Jan. 16, 1776, appearing in the Town and Country Magazine. It measures 11-1/2 × 12-1/2 inches, and extends from Plymouth to Ipswich, and inland to Groton and Providence.

The evacuation of Boston in March, 1776, removed the centre of interest elsewhere, but there was for some time an apprehension of the return of the British for a naval attack; and while the Americans were fortifying the harbor, the English were publishing in London several maps of its configuration. The earliest was a Chart of Massachusetts Bay and Boston Harbour, published April 29, 1776. With the date changed to Dec. 1, 1781, it was subsequently included by Des Barres in the Atlantic Neptune, and in the Charts of the Coast and Harbors of New England, 1781.[621] Another Chart of Boston Bay, whose limits include Salem, Watertown, and Scituate, following Holland's surveys, was published Nov. 13, 1776, and later appeared, dated Dec. 1, 1781, in the Atlantic Neptune, and in the Coast and Harbors of New England. A chart of the harbor, with soundings, was also included in the North American Pilot for New England (London, 1776), showing a solitary tree on the peninsula marked "Ruins of Charlestown." There was a second edition of the Pilot in 1800. A small plan of the harbor is also in the margin of Carrington Bowles's Map of the seat of war in New England (London, 1776).

The first eclectic map was that published by Gordon in his Amer. Revolution (London, 1788), which he based on Pelham's map for the country, and Page's for the harbor.[622]

The French maps published in Paris were almost always based on English sources. Such were the Carte de la baye de Baston (no. 30), and Plan de la ville de Baston (no. 31), in Le Petit Atlas maritime, vol. i., Amérique Septentrionale, par le S. Bellin, 1764. There are several other French maps without date, but probably a little antedating the outbreak of hostilities. Such are a Plan de la ville et du port de Boston, published by Lattré in Paris;[623] and a small map, Plan de la ville de Boston et ses environs, engraved by B. D. Bakker. An engraved map, without date, is in the British Museum, called Carte des environs de Boston, capitale de la N^lle Angleterre en Amérique.[624] It carries the coast from below Plymouth to above the Merrimac. There is in the Poore collection of maps in the Mass. State Archives a Carte de la baye de Baston (marked Tome i. no. 30).

The only dated map of this period is a Carte du porte et havre de Boston, par le Chevalier de Beaurain (Paris, 1776). The corner vignette shows a soldier bearing a banner with a pine-tree. Frothingham, who reëngraved this picture, could find no earlier representation of the pine-tree flag.

The English (1774) map of the "most inhabited part of New England" was reproduced "after the original by M. Le Rouge, 1777", under the title of La Nouvelle Angleterre en 4 feuilles; and it was again used in the Atlas Ameriquain Septentrional, à Paris, chez Le Rouge (1778), repeating the map of Boston, with names in English and descriptions in French. Another reproduction from the English appeared in the Carte particulière du Havre de Boston, reduite de la carte anglaise de Des Barres par ordre de M. de Sartine (1780). It belongs to the Neptune Americo-Septentrional, publié par ordre du Roi.

There is among the Rochambeau maps (no. 14), in the library of Congress, a Plan d'une partie de la rade de Boston, done in color, about eight inches wide by sixteen high, showing the forts and giving an elaborate key.

There is a curious map of Boston and its harbor, with names in Latin, but apparently of German make, Ichnographia urbis Boston and Ichnographia portus Bostoniensis, which make part of a larger map, perhaps the Nova Anglia of Homann of Nuremberg. The Geschichte der Kriege in und ausser Europa, published also at Nuremberg in 1776 (erste theil) has a map of Boston. Of the same date (1776), and belonging to the Geographische Belustigungen für Erläuterung der neuesten Weltgeschichte (Zweytes Stück), published at Leipsic, is a Carte von dem Hafen und der Stadt Boston, following the French map of Beaurain even to reproducing the group with the pine-tree banner. It embraces a circuit about Boston of which the outer limits are Chelsea, Cambridge, Dorchester, Long Island, Deer Island, and Pulling Point.

G. The Capture of Ticonderoga, 1775.—It is in dispute who planned and who conducted the capture of Ticonderoga. On Feb. 21, 1775, Col. John Brown had suggested it to Warren (Force's Archives). Arnold made a statement of the post's defenceless condition to the Committee of Safety in Cambridge, April 30, 1775 (Mass. Archives, cxlvi. p. 30; Amer. Bibliopolist, 1873, p. 79). On the 2d of May he was given a money credit and munitions, and on the 3d he was definitely instructed to organize his party (Mass. Archives, cxlvi. p. 39). It is claimed that some purpose of acting on the suggestion of Brown prompted in part, at least, the Massachusetts provincial congress to appoint early in April a committee to proceed to Connecticut and the other New England colonies. Whether it was by their instigation, by certain movements in Connecticut, or by the direct agency of Arnold that the plan was formed, it is difficult to say. It is also claimed that the plan grew out of a conference with the Massachusetts delegates to the Philadelphia Congress, when, on their way, they stopped at Hartford and held a session with Governor Trumbull and his council (Force's Archives, ii. 507; Wells's Sam. Adams, ii. 298). Bancroft and the Connecticut antiquaries find the beginning rather in the impulses of one Parsons, who had just returned from Massachusetts, and had got from Benedict Arnold, whom he met on the way, a statement of the plunder to be obtained there, and, without any formal consent of the governor and council, proceeded in the organization of a committee in Connecticut (Bancroft, orig. ed., vii. 338; final revision, iv. 182). Official sanction was first evoked when Massachusetts, a few days later, commissioned Arnold (Mass. Archives, cxlvi. 130, 139; American Bibliopolist, 1873, p. 79; N. Y. Hist. Soc. Proc., 1844, p. 14). The Connecticut antiquaries have mainly set forth the claims of their colony for leadership of the affair in the papers which constitute vol. i. (pp. 163-185) of the Conn. Hist. Soc. Collections, in which is the journal of Edward Mott,[625] the chairman of the Connecticut committee, edited by J. H. Trumbull.[626]

The part taken in the movement in Western Massachusetts arose from confidence reposed in Brown and others of Pittsfield, by the Connecticut men who passed through that town on their way to the New Hampshire Grants.[627] Brown had, during the previous winter, notified the Massachusetts committee that Ticonderoga would receive the attention of Ethan Allen and Green Mountain boys as soon as the outbreak came. The credit which attaches to this commander is complicated by the relations which Arnold bore to the final capture, and has in turn given rise to controversy. The most comprehensive examination of the question on the Vermont side is L. E. Chittenden's Addresses before the Vermont Historical Society, Oct., 1872 (published at Rutland by the society), and at the unveiling of Allen's statue at Burlington, July 4, 1873. We have Allen's own statements in his Narrative of his captivity, etc.[628]

Dawson thinks that the merit of originating the active measures cannot be taken from Benedict Arnold, and in his chapter (Battles of the United States, i. ch. 2) on the subject traces minutely the sources of each step in the progress of events, and in his Appendix (p. 38) prints the protest (May 10th, p. 38) of the Connecticut committee against Arnold's interference and Arnold's report (May 11th, p. 38) to the Massachusetts Congress.[629] There are some of the current reports preserved in Moore's Diary of the Amer. Revolution (i. pp. 78-80), and the account, which ignores Arnold, of the Worcester Spy (May 16th) is given in the Amer. Bibliopolist (1871, p. 491). There are other contemporary accounts in the American Archives (vols. ii. and iii.); a journal by Elmer is in the New Jersey Hist. Soc. Proc., vols. ii. and iii.; a Tory account in Jones's New York during the Revolutionary War (vol. i. pp. 47, 546), with a letter of May 14th.[630] Narratives by Caldwell and Beaman are in the Historical Magazine, August, 1867, and May, 1868, respectively.[631]

H. The Canada Campaign, 1775-1776.—Washington in New York, June 25th, entrusted to Schuyler the command in the North (Lossing's Schuyler, i. 330; Jones's N. Y. during the Rev. War, 58), and Congress issued (May 29, 1775) an address to the Canadians (Journal of Congress; Pitkin's United States, i. App. 19). In August it was reported that this address was left at the door of every house in Canada. Schuyler reached Ticonderoga July 18th (Lossing's Schuyler, i. ch. 21; Palmer's Lake Champlain, ch. 6; Irving's Washington, ii.), and pushed on to the foot of Lake Champlain in September (Lossing, i. ch. 23).

Among the early reports, inducing the project of invading Canada, were the letters of Maj. John Brown (Aug. 14, 1775) and Ethan Allen (Sept. 14th) respecting the condition of the Canadians (Sparks's Corresp. of the Rev., i. 461, 464). There are other letters on the state of Canada at this time in the N. H. Prov. Papers, vii. 515, 547, 561-62, 569. The Schuyler Papers, with the letters which they contain of Montgomery, Arnold, Wooster, and Sullivan, are a main source of information respecting the whole campaign.[632]

FROM THE ATLAS OF WILKINSON'S MEMOIRS.

A modern eclectic map is given in Carrington's Battles, 171. The most considerable contemporary map for the illustration of the movements during the Revolution in Canada is one published by Jefferys, in 1776, of the Province of Quebec, from the French Surveys and those made by Capt. Carver and others after the War, with much detail of names, plan of Quebec and heights of Abraham, Montreal and isles of Montreal (27 x 19 inches). On Feb. 16, 1776, Sayer and Bennett published in London A new map of the Province of Quebec according to the royal proclamation of 7 Oct., 1763, from the French surveys, corrected with those made after the war by Captain Carver and other officers in his majesty's service. There was a French reproduction of it in Paris in 1777, included in the Atlas Ameriquain (1778), called Nouvelle Carte de la Province de Quebec selon l'édit du Roi d'Angleterre du 7 8{bre}, 1763, par le Capitaine Carver, traduites de l'Anglois, à Paris chez le Rouge, 1777.

Jefferys also issued in 1775 An exact Chart of the River St. Lawrence from Fort Frontenac to Anticosti (37 X 24 inches), which is usually accompanied by a Chart of the Golf of St. Lawrence, 1775(24 X 20 inches). North Amer. Pilot, nos. 11, 20, 21, 22. There is in the Geschichte der Kriege in und ausser Europa [Nuremberg], 1776, a "Karte von der Insel Montreal und den Gegenden umher", following a plan by Bellin.

A map of Canada in 1774 is embraced in Mitchell's Map of the British Colonies, and in Wright's ed. of Cavendish's Debates in the Commons (1774) on the Canada bill, London, 1839. There are other maps in the American Atlas and Hilliard d'Auberteuil's Essais.

Schuyler's health preventing his taking the field in person, the interest in the campaign centres in Montgomery up to the time of his death.[633] We have despatches of his (Nov. 3, 1775) on the capture of St. Johns,[634] on the taking of Chamblée,[635] and on the capitulation of Montreal,[636] with his letters from before Quebec (Sparks, Corresp., i. 492, etc.). A letter from one of his aids at this time (Dec. 16, 1775) is in Life of George Read, p. 115.

The principal Life of Montgomery is that by J. Armstrong, in Sparks's Amer. Biography (i. p. 181), which may be supplemented by other minor accounts.[637]

The connection of Benedict Arnold with the Campaign is illustrated in his letters, beginning with those before he left the column advancing by Lake Champlain, and then following his progress on the expedition to coöperate by the Kennebec route, which Washington proposed to Schuyler in a letter of Aug. 20, 1775 (Sparks's Washington, iii. 63). On Sept. 14th Washington sealed his instructions to Arnold (Sparks, iii. 86; Dawson, 113; Henry's Journal, ed. 1877, p. 2). It is said that the route to be taken was suggested to Arnold by the journal of an exploration in that direction by Montresor in 1760.[638] That engineer had, by order of General Murray, made a survey of this route in 1761.[639] There are maps to illustrate Arnold's route in the Atlantic Neptune, London Mag., 1776, Marshall's Atlas to his Washington, and in the 1877 edition of Henry's Journal.[640] All the general histories and a few biographies and local records necessarily cover the story.[641] Arnold himself is the best contemporary authority.

CAPITULATION OF ST. JOHNS.

Fac-simile, slightly reduced, of the reproduction in Smith's Amer. Hist. and Lit. Curios., 2d series, p. xl., from the original in the collection of Ferdinand J. Dreer, of Philadelphia.

A number of his letters respecting the expedition are in Bowdoin College library,[642] and they and others will be found in print in the Maine Hist. Soc. Collections (1831), vol. i. 357, etc., and in Sparks's Corresp. of the Revolution, i. 46, 60, 88, 475, etc.[643] His journal of his progress is unfortunately rather meagre, and covers but a few weeks, Sept. 27 to Oct. 30, 1775. The original manuscript was left by Arnold at West Point when he fled, and extracts from it are printed in S. L. Knapp's Life of Aaron Burr, 1835; it is now owned by Mr. S. L. M. Barlow, of New York, and a copy, made from it when owned by Judge Edwards, of New York, is in the Sparks MSS. (lii. vol. ii.).

CONCLUSION AND ATTESTATION OF MONTGOMERY'S WILL.

Cf. Harper's Mag., vol. lxx. p. 356.

Various other journals of the actors in the expedition have been preserved.[644]

Arnold's letters at the Point-aux-Trembles and before Quebec are in Sparks's Corresp. of the Rev. (i. App.), together with those addressed to Wooster,[645] Schuyler, and Washington after the failure of the assault on Quebec, Dec. 31, 1775.[646]

MONTGOMERY.

After the only original portrait preserved at Montgomery Place, and representing him at about twenty-five. Cf. Harper's Mag., lxx. p. 350; Irving's Washington, illus. ed., vol. ii.

The study of Trumbull's well-known picture of "The Death of Montgomery" is on a card less than four inches square, now owned by Major Lewis, of Virginia, and is marked "J. Trumbull to Nelly Custis, 1790" (Johnston's Orig. Portraits of Washington, p. 72).

MONTGOMERY.

From An Impartial History of the War in America, vol. i. p. 392 (Boston), engraved by J. Norman. Cf. the engraving in Murray's Impartial Hist. of the Present War, ii. 193. Neither of these copper-plates are probably of any value as likenesses. They show the kind of effigy doing service at the time.

The great resource for original material on the siege of Quebec, beside the letters given by Sparks and Lossing, are in the gatherings of 4 Force's Archives, vols. iv., v., and vi.; Almon's Remembrancer, vol. ii.; N. Y. Col. Docs., viii. 663, etc.; and in a large number of diaries and other contemporary records, which may readily be classed as American or British, with a few emanating from the French Canadians.[647]

On Jan. 19, 1776, a report was made in Congress that the army in Canada be reinforced (Secret Journals, i. 241).

From an engraving of full length in An Impartial Hist. of the War in America, Lond. 1780, p. 249. A mezzotint similar to this was published in London, 1776, as "Col. Arnold, who commanded the provincial troops sent against Quebec" (J. C. Smith, Brit. Mez. Portraits, iv. 1714-1717). The portrait in profile, by W. Tate,—a handsome face,—was engraved in line by H. B. Hall in 1865, and etched by him in 1879 for Isaac N. Arnold's Life of B. Arnold. Cf. Jones's Campaign for the Conquest of Canada, p. 168. Other portraits of Arnold are given later in the present volume.

MONTRESOR'S MAP.

Sketched from the original (1760) among the Peter Force maps in the Library of Congress. There is a copy in the library of the N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Society.

In April Arnold returned to Montreal, and Wooster took command before Quebec,[648] to be superseded by General Thomas, who reached the camp May 1st. Upon Carleton's being reinforced, Thomas began to retreat.[649] Burgoyne arrived with additional troops in June (Fonblanque's Burgoyne, 211). The affair at the Cedars took place May 19, 1776.[650] The movement against Three Rivers had been begun by orders of Thompson, who was in command upon the death of Thomas (June 2d), and remained so for a few days till Sullivan arrived.

From An Impartial History of the War in America, Lond., 1780, p. 400, where the cut represents his full length. Cf. prints published in London in 1776 (Brit. Mez. Portrait, by J. C. Smith); Hollister's Connecticut, i. 390; Jones's Campaign for the Conquest of Canada, 28; Geschichte der Kriege in und ausser Europa (Nürnberg, 1778).

Smith, in the St. Clair Papers, i. 17, collates the authorities on this movement,[651] calling in question the statements given by Bancroft.

Sullivan's Irish precipitancy and over-confidence did not mend matters as the retreat went on, and raised delusive hopes which were more welcome than Arnold's gloomy views.[652]

SIEGE OF QUEBEC, 1775-76.

Sketched from a manuscript plan noted in the Sparks Catalogue (p. 208), which belongs to Cornell University, and was kindly communicated to the editor. The original (18½ × 15 inches) is marked as "on a scale of 30 chaines to an Inch", and is signed "E. Antill ft." in the corner. Mr. Sparks has marked it "Siege of Quebec, 1776." It is endorsed on the outside, "Gen^l Arnold's plan of Quebec, with y^e Americans besieging it, y^e winter of 1776." It bears the following Key: "H, Headquarters. A, A, A, advanced guards. B, B, B, main guards. C, C, C, quarter guards. D, Capt. Smith's riflemen. E, cul-de-sac, where the men-of-war lay, F, governor's house. G, where all materials are carried to build our batteries, out of view of the town. I, lower town. K, the barrier, near which General Montgomery fell. K L, the dotted line shews the route the troops took under the general, thro' deep snow without any path." The dotted line in the river marks the extent of ice from the shore, and in the open stream are the words: "(Unfrose) Ice driving with y^e Tide." The roads are marked by broken lines – – – – – – –. The position of patrols are marked by the letter P.

The principal engraved map is a Plan of the city and environs of Quebec with its siege and blockage by the Americans from the 8th of December, 1775, to the 13th of May, 1776. Engraved by Wm. Faden, London; published 12 Sept., 1776. The original MS. draft is among the Faden maps (no. 20) in the library of Congress. There are other plans as follows: Mag. of Amer. Hist., April, 1884, p. 282; Leake's Life of Lamb, p. 130; Atlas to Marshall's Washington; Carrington's Battles, p. 138; Stone's Invasion of Canada, p. xvii.; a marginal plan in Sayer and Bennett's New Map of the Province of Quebec, published Feb. 16, 1776; and a German "Plan von Quebec" in the Geschichte der Kriege in und ausser Europa, Nuremberg, 1777, Dritter Theil. There is a marginal map of Quebec in an edition of Carver's map of the Province of Quebec, published by Le Rouge in Paris in 1777, and included in the Atlas Ameriquain (1778).

For views of Quebec and the points of attack, see Moore's Diary of the Rev., i. 185; Lossing's Field-Book, i. 198; and Mag. of Amer. Hist., April, 1884, p. 274. A view of the plains of Abraham is in Ibid., p. 296.

The retreat continued to Crown Point, and in July Sullivan was relieved by Gates; and the campaign was over,—nothing accomplished. On July 26th Governor Trumbull reviews the condition of the army in a letter in Hinman's Conn. during the Rev. (p. 560).[653] The letters of Ira Allen and John Hurd express the uneasy state of mind along the frontier, which now took possession of the exposed settlers (N. H. Prov. Papers, viii. pp. 301, 306, 311, 315-317, 405). Insecurity was felt at Ticonderoga (N. H. State Papers, viii. 576, 581).

Congress twice appointed commissioners to proceed towards Canada. In Nov., 1775, Robert R. Livingston, John Langdon, and Robert Treat Paine were sent, with instructions dated Nov. 8th,[654] to examine the fortifications of Ticonderoga and the highlands, and "to use their endeavors to procure an accession of the Canadians to a union with these colonies;" and their report (Nov. 17th), with a letter to Montgomery (Nov. 30th), is in the Sparks MSS. (lii. vol. ii.). In March, 1776, Benj. Franklin, Samuel Chase, and Charles Carroll were instructed (Journals of Congress, i. 289; Force, v. 411) to proceed to Canada to influence, if possible, the sympathies of the Canadians. Carroll was a Roman Catholic, and he was accompanied by his brother, John Carroll, a priest.[655] Much was expected of the mission on this account (Adams's Familiar Letters, 135). Franklin, delayed at Saratoga (April), began to feel that the exposures of the expedition were too much for one of his years, and sat down to write "to a few friends by way of farewell."[656] Carroll kept a diary, which has been since printed.[657] There are papers appertaining to the mission in Force's Archives, 4th, iv., v.; Sparks's Washington (iii. 390), and his Corresp. of the Rev. (i. 572), and Lossing's Schuyler (vol. ii.).[658] On Jan. 31, 1850, Mr. William Duane delivered an address on Canada and the Continental Congress before the Penna. Hist. Soc., which is printed among their occasional publications.

SULLIVAN'S ISLAND.

A part of a view published in London, August 10, 1776, and made by Lieut.-Col. Thomas James, of the Royal Regiment of Artillery. June 30, 1776. It represents the position of the fleet during "the attack on the 28th of June, which lasted nine hours and forty minutes." The position of the ships is designated by A, "Active", 28 guns; B, "Bristol", flag-ship, 50 guns; C, "Experiment", 50 guns; D, "Solebay", 28 guns. The "Syren", 28 guns, and "Acteon", 28 guns, and the "Thunder", bomb-ketch, were nearer the spectator as was the "Friendship", of 28 guns. L is Sullivan's Island; M, a narrow isthmus, defended by an armed hulk, N; the mainland is O; myrtle-grove, P.

Faden also issued at the same time, as made by Col. James, a long panoramic view of Sullivan's and Long islands, showing the American and British camps on the opposite sides of the dividing inlet.

Mr. Brantz Mayer's introduction to the Centennial ed. of Carroll's journal is largely concerned with the question of the Catholic pacification of Canada. Cf. Brent's Life of Archbishop Carroll; and B. W. Campbell's "Life and Times of Archbishop Carroll" in U. S. Cath. Mag., iii. The unfortunate comments (Oct. 21, 1774) of the Continental Congress on the Quebec Act was much against the persuasions of the commissioners, and it was soon evident that all their efforts, on this side at least, were futile. (Cf. Force's Am. Archives, ii. 231.)

After Franklin and John Carroll had left Montreal, Charles Carroll and Chase remained, endeavoring to support the military councils.[659]

I. The Attack on Sullivan's Island, June, 1776.—Clinton's proclamation to the magistrates of South Carolina, June 6, 1776, is in Ramsay's Revolution in South Carolina, i. 330. Lee's report to Washington (July 1, 1776) is in Sparks's Correspondence of the Revolution, i. 243; to Congress (July 2d), in Ibid., ii. 502; in Lee's Memoirs, p. 386; in Force's American Archives, 5th ser., i. p. 435; N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll., 1872, pp. 100, 107; and in Dawson (p. 139). John Adams (Familiar Letters, 203) notes the exhilaration which the news caused in Philadelphia.

There are other contemporary accounts in Gen. Morris's letter in the N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll., 1875, p. 438; in R. W. Gibbes's Doc. Hist. of the Amer. Rev., 1776-1782, pp. 2-19; in Force's Archives; in Frank Moore's Diary of the Rev., i. p. 257; in Moore's Laurens Correspondence, p. 24. A "new war song" of the day, referring to the battle, is given in Moore's Songs and Ballads of the Rev., p. 135. A broadside account was printed in Philadelphia, June 20, 1776 (Hildeburn's Bibliog., no. 3342). A plan of the attack after a London original was published in Philadelphia in 1777, with a "Description of the attack in a letter from Sir Peter Parker to Mr. Stephens, and an extract from a letter of Lieut. Gen. Clinton to Lord Geo. Germaine" (Hildeburn, no. 3539).

CHARLESTOWN, S. C., AND THE BRITISH FLEET, JUNE 29, 1776.

After a print published in London by Faden, August 10, 1776, taken by Lieut.-Col. James, the day after the fight.

Key.—A, Charlestown; B, Ashley River; C, Fort Johnston; D, Cummins Point; E, part of Five-Fathom Hole, where all the fleet rode before and after the attack; F, station of the headmost frigate, the "Solebay", two miles and three quarters from Fort Sullivan, situated to the northward of G; H, part of Mt. Pleasant; I, part of Hog Island; K, Wando River; L, Cooper River; M, James Island; N, breakers on Charlestown Bar; O, rebel schooner of 12 guns.

There is "An exact prospect of Charlestown, the metropolis of South Carolina", in the London Mag., 1762, a folding panoramic view, which shows the water-front with ships in the harbor.

The earliest general account is by Moultrie himself in his Memoirs of the American Revolution. Cf. Gordon's Amer. Rev.; and John Drayton's Memoirs of the American Revolution [through 1776] as relating to the State of South Carolina (Charleston, 1821, two vols.). Of the later general historians, reference may be made to Bancroft (orig. ed.), vol. viii. ch. 66, and final revision, iv. ch. xxv., a full account; to Dawson, i. ch. 10, to Carrington, ch. 27, 28; to Gay, iii. 467; Irving's Washington, ii. ch. 29; Lossing's Field-Book, ii. p. 754. Something can be gleaned from Garden's Anecdotes of the Revolution; Memoirs of Elkanah Watson; the life of Rutledge in Flanders's Chief Justices; and from such occasional productions as William Crafts's address (1825), included in his Miscellanies; Porcher's address in the South Carolina Hist. Coll., vol. i.; C. C. Jones, Jr.'s address on Sergeant Jasper in 1876, and the Centennial Memorial of that year and the paper in Harper's Monthly, xxi. 70, by T. D. English.

On the British side we have Parker's despatch (July 9th) in Dawson, p. 140; a letter of Clinton (July 8th) in the Sparks MSS., no. lviii.; Clinton's Observations on Stedman's History; the reports in the Gent. Mag. and Annual Register; the early historical estimate in Adolphus's England, ii. 346. Jones, New York in the Revolutionary War, i. 98, gives the Tory view. There is a contemporary letter by a British officer given in Lady Cavendish's Admiral Gambier, copied in Hist. Mag., v. 68. Hutchinson (Life and Diary, ii. 92) records the effects of the fight in England.[660]

CHAPTER III.

THE SENTIMENT OF INDEPENDENCE, ITS GROWTH AND CONSUMMATION.

BY GEORGE E. ELLIS, D. D., LL. D.,

President Mass. Hist. Society.

THE assertion needs no qualification that the thirteen colonies would not in the beginning have furnished delegates to a congress with the avowed purpose of seeking a separation from the mother country; and we may also affirm, that, with a possible forecast in the minds of some two or three members, such a result was not apprehended. If any deceptive methods—as was charged at the time—were engaged in turning a congress avowedly called to secure a redress of grievances into an agency for securing independence, they will appear in the sharp scrutiny with which we may now study the inner history of the subject. And if an explanation of the course of the Congress can be found, consistent with its perfect sincerity, we must then seek to trace the influences alike of the new light which came in upon the delegates, and of successive aggravating measures of the British government, in substituting independence as its object. Though it is certain that Samuel Adams, fretting under the hesitations of Congress, had proposed to an ardent sympathizer that the four New England colonies should act in that direction by themselves, his own clear judgment would have satisfied him that that step would have been futile unless the other colonies followed it. If there were but a single colony from which no response could be drawn, the consequences would have been obstructive. That different sections of the country should have furnished leaders so in accord as Samuel Adams, Richard H. Lee, and Gadsden was a most felicitous condition. A congress, then, composed of delegates from all the colonies was the indispensable and the only practicable method for working out the scheme of independence, and even such a congress must avoid basing its action on local grievances. The reserve which the delegates from Massachusetts found it politic to practise, in not obtruding their special grievances, was well decided upon from the first, and proved to be effective. That the circumstances required patience in such men as the Adamses is abundantly evident from the frankness with which they wrote outside of Congress of the temporizing and dilatoriness of what went on in it.

There is no general assertion which comes nearer to the truth on this subject than that, from the first colonization of America by the English, the spirit of independence was latent here, and was in a steady process of natural development. George Chalmers, with the opportunities of a clerk of the Board of Trade, made an inquisitive private study of State Papers, and reached the full conviction that the colonists from the start, not only quietly assumed, but really aimed at an independence. He quotes abundant warnings, and charges the successive crown officials here and at home with culpable negligence in not acting on these warnings when they might have done so.[661] The pages of Chalmers confirm and illustrate the fact that the colonists lived in the enjoyment of a more real autonomy, and a do-as-you-please enfranchisement, than was shared by home subjects. There went with this a sort of assumption, a bold conceit, a sturdy truculency, which could be easily trained into defiance.[662]

Large allowance also must be made on account of the fact that the colonies had mastered their most critical perils wholly from their own resources. English benevolence in private individuals had generously fostered some enterprises of learning and charity here. But government had left the exiles to fight their own battles against the savages and the earliest French enemies. Far back in colonial times Governor Winthrop records that, in some emergent strait of the exiles, a suggestion was made of turning to England for help. The suggestion was shrewdly put aside, lest, having asked such aid, they might incur obligations.

It was of course admitted that the colonists had come under some form of obligation to the home government during the exhausting campaigns of the French and Indian wars. A question, however, soon came under debate, as to what that obligation involved. Great Britain assumed that it justified a demand upon the colonists for revenue. The colonists roused themselves to repudiate any obligation to be enforced by the payment of a tax imposed by a Parliament in which they had no representation. It was just here that the latent spirit of independence led the colonists to examine to the root their relations of allegiance, and, on the other hand, their natural rights. The General Court of Massachusetts, in 1768, had admitted "that his Majesty's high court of Parliament is the supreme legislative power over the whole empire." It took less than ten years to bring it about that Massachusetts either had not understood what it said,—at least, had not meant to say exactly that,—or had come to think differently about it.

In the Bill of Rights coming from the first Congress the committee say: "In the course of their inquiry they find many infringements and violations of rights, which they pass over for the present." These previous impositions and disabilities came in, however, afterwards for their full share of rhetoric and argument. As we trace the method in which the controversy with government matured, we mark these stages of it. Objection and forcible resistance found their first occasion when, at the close of the French war, government devised the policy of the Stamp Act. The colonists came to distinguish this as creating an internal tax, in contrast to the previous external taxes, through the laws regulating commerce, to which heretofore they had not objected. Vindicating their resistance to the new internal tax, they came to find similar grievances in the former external taxes. So they were teaching themselves first to define and then to assert independence.

We have become accustomed to associate with the term Congress the idea of a legally constituted organic body, with defined powers authoritatively assigned to it, the exercise of which is binding on its constituents. Our Continental congresses were of quite another sort, and had no authority save what might be granted to the wisdom and practicability of the measures they advised. Most certain it is that only a very small minority of the people of the colonies were concerned in calling the early congresses. As certain, also, is it that a very large preponderance of the people of all classes were then strongly opposed to any violent measures, to sundering ties of allegiance, or to seeking anything beyond a peaceful redress of grievances. On the whole, while it must be admitted that Congress was generally in advance of its constituency, it knew how to temporize and to give intervals of pause in steadily working on to its ultimate declaration. "Natural leaders" always start forth in such a cause, and they learn their skill by practice.

When it became evident that, instead of any healing of the breach, the whole activity of the Congress tended to widen it, a regret was expressed in some quarters that, by the connivance and consent of the royal governors, and through the regular legislative processes, a more legal and conservative character had not been secured to this meeting of delegates,—as if dangerous plotting might thereby have been averted. But the patriot leaders of the movement were too well advised to look for any such official coöperation. The very life of their scheme depended upon its wholly popular conception. Nor could the consent of governors and formal assemblies have been won to it. The whole method of the steady strengthening of the spirit of alienation from Great Britain was a working of popular feeling in channels different from those of ordinary official direction and oversight.

It was but fair to assume that the objects of the first Congress would be defined by the instructions furnished by those who sent or commissioned its members. The delegates from New Hampshire were bid "to consult and adopt such measures as may have the most likely tendency to extricate the colonies from their present difficulties, to secure and perpetuate their rights, liberties, and privileges, and to restore that peace, harmony, and mutual confidence which once happily subsisted between the parent country and her colonies." Massachusetts bade her delegates "deliberate and determine upon wise and proper measures, to be by them recommended to all the colonies, for the recovery and establishment of their just rights and liberties, civil and religious,[663] and the restoration of union and harmony between Great Britain and the colonies, most ardently desired by all good men." Rhode Island's charter governor empowered the delegates "to join in consulting upon proper measures to obtain a repeal of the several acts of the British Parliament, &c., and upon proper measures to establish the rights and liberties of the colonies upon a just and solid foundation." Connecticut authorized its delegates "to consult and advise on proper measures for advancing the best good of the colonies." The delegates from New York were trusted without any particular instructions, having merely a general commission "to attend the Congress at Philadelphia." So, also, New Jersey appointed its delegates "to represent the colony of New Jersey in the said General Congress." Pennsylvania sent a committee from its own Assembly in behalf of the province "to consult upon the present unhappy state of the colonies, and to form and adopt a plan for the purposes of obtaining redress of American grievances, ascertaining American rights upon the most solid and constitutional principles, and for establishing that union and harmony between Great Britain and the colonies which is indispensably necessary to the welfare and happiness of both." The deputies from the three Lower Counties were "to consult and determine upon all such prudent and lawful measures as may be judged most expedient for the colonies immediately and unitedly to adopt, in order to obtain relief for an oppressed people, and the redress of our general grievances."

It will be observed that the instructions from these eight colonies are moderate and pacific in terms, without menace, or a looking to any other results than harmony. Something a little more emphatic appears in what follows. The Maryland delegates were to use all efforts in their power in the Congress "to effect one general plan of conduct operating on the commercial relations of the colonies with the mother country." Virginia bade her delegates "consider of the most proper and effectual manner of so operating on the commercial connection of the colonies with the mother country as to procure redress for the much-injured province of the Massachusetts Bay; to secure British America from the ravage and ruin of arbitrary taxes; and speedily to procure the return of that harmony and union so beneficial to the whole nation, and no ardently desired by all British America." The delegates of South Carolina are instructed "to concert, agree to, and effectually prosecute such legal measures as shall be most likely to obtain a repeal of the said acts and a redress of those grievances." The deputies of North Carolina were authorized "to deliberate upon the present state of British America, and to take such measures as they may deem prudent to effect the purpose of describing with certainty the rights of Americans, repairing the breach made in those rights, and for guarding them for the future from any such violations done under the sanction of public authority."

Now it is true that one may read as between the lines of these instructions intimations of reserved purposes, and possibly menaces that something more will be required if what is suggested in them fail of effect; but as they stand, their tone is not hostile or menacing. They limit the terms and measure of what they exact. Several very pregnant suggestions present themselves. Men of a large variety of opinions and purposes might take part in a congress so constituted. If the measures proposed had been restricted, so to speak, to the programme, there might have been substantial accord among the delegates, and no one could have been startled and offended with what they soon regarded as rebellious manifestations in the Congress.

The case of Joseph Galloway, at first esteemed a most resolute patriot, and then committing himself to extreme loyalty, presents us an example. He was a lawyer of great abilities, a gentleman of wealth and of high social position. He had made many strong protests against the oppressive measures of government. He was a member of the Pennsylvania Assembly eighteen years, and twelve years its speaker. He says[664] that when he was chosen as a delegate to the first Congress he positively refused to serve unless he was allowed to draw his own "instructions." He was permitted to do so, and he himself signed them as speaker. They contain this injunction: "You are strictly charged to avoid everything indecent and disrespectful to the mother state." Chosen a delegate to the second Congress, he positively declined to serve, though importuned to do so by Dr. Franklin. The instructions given to the eight associates named with him for this second Congress contained the stringent words, "We strictly enjoin you that you, in behalf of this colony, dissent from and utterly reject any propositions, should such be made, that may cause or lead to a separation from the mother country, or a change of the form of government." The removal of this restriction on June 14, 1776, enabled a majority of the delegates to give the vote of the province for independence.

No man in this first Congress marked a stronger contrast to Galloway than Samuel Adams, the "man of the people." Compared with what Joseph Reed called "the fine fellows from Virginia", Adams was not what is conventionally called a gentleman; but while John Hancock brought from Massachusetts money and ambition, his colleague carried the hardier brains of the two. The odious epithet of "demagogue" attached to Adams, not because of any beguiling arts, but from his plain simplicity of garb, preferred associates, manners, and mode of life. In his cheap and homely attire, dispensing with any other mode of influence than that of an honest heart and a vigorous mind, he had made himself the familiar companion of the mechanics, artificers, and craftsmen of North Boston, the shipbuilders, joiners, and calkers,—the rough, honest, and thrifty democracy,—with whom, sitting on a spar or loitering in a workshop, he would spend long and instructive hours. He was puritanically religious and rigidly observant of solemnities, prayed in his family, and asked a blessing at each meal of his simple fare. He neglected his own business to devote himself to public interests. Of his own poverty he was neither ashamed nor proud. It would not have been seemly for him to have presented himself to the courtly gentry of the Congress as he appeared in the streets of Boston. It would doubtless have confirmed the prejudice which many entertained of him as an ill-bred mass-leader. For deep and wide learning in legal, political, and economical science, added to his college culture, and for debating powers, he was the peer of any of his associates. If he had been left to himself in his straits he would have gone on his high errand clad as he was; but before he was to go his friends had done the best they could for him. The tailor, the hatter, bootmaker, and haberdasher, appearing at his house from anonymous friends, had furnished him a complete outfit, not, however, of the full sumptuousness of Hancock's. As for the rest, Adams was well prepared in bodily presence to meet for the first time his warm friend in correspondence, Richard Henry Lee. No truly lineal citizen of the old Puritan colony will ever be ashamed of this characteristic representative of its traditions and its people at the first Congress,—this prophet of independence.

The fact, without any fulness of detail, is assured to us that there was much of discordance and dissension in this Congress of 1774. Probably there was scarcely a single proposition or speaker that did not find an antagonist. Certainly it appeared that Congress was not ready to break from the mother realm. Results, however, were reached of a sort to prompt just such further measures from the British government as to insure some livelier work in its next session. The most decisively contumacious act of the Congress was the adoption and approval of the resolves passed by the daring Suffolk County (Massachusetts) meeting, which most clearly endorsed rebellion, and took steps in initiating it.[665] It is to be remembered, moreover, that in this first Congress, Washington, whose frank sincerity stands unimpeached, denied that the colonies wished for, or could safely, separately or together, set up for independence. Before Congress again met in May, the first blood had been shed at Lexington and Concord; and Massachusetts, as the first colony to set up as a consequence its own autonomy, sought and received the ratification of its conduct by Congress, after it had assembled.

The instructions to the delegates still held them to seeking a redress of grievances and the restoration of harmony, as "desired by all good men", and in pursuit of this object a second letter or petition to the king, which John Adams calls "Dickinson's letter", was prepared and adopted by Congress. It was respectful, earnest, tender in its professions and appeals. It besought the king himself to interpose between his much-abused and long-enduring subjects and the oppressive measures of his ministers, as if he himself was misled and imposed upon by them. The bearing which this most remarkable letter has upon the charge of insincerity and hypocrisy in the action of Congress is apparent. It is enough to say here that Richard Penn, the messenger who bore the letter, was not permitted to see the king, whose only recognition of it was a violently toned proclamation for suppressing rebellion and sedition among his American subjects. Startling was the effect on the Congress of this royal declaration of an unrelenting purpose, which arrived on November 1st, coupled with the intelligence of a large reinforcement of the British army and navy, and with the purposed employment of seventeen thousand German mercenaries. The same day brought an account of the burning of Falmouth, now Portland, by Captain Mowat, reasonably exciting an alarm in all the settlements on the seaboard. What might be lacking in the final resolution of some of the leading members of Congress to come to the issue was well supplied by these last measures of government, which could work only in the direction of an implacable rupture. Still it is a matter of fact, now attested by full evidence, that the majority of Congress, either held by their lingering hope of some scheme of conciliation, or even doubtful if their constituents would reinforce their own resolution now, would not entertain a motion for independence.[666] A recess of the Congress from August 5th to September 5th gave to some of the members an opportunity to try the pulse of their constituents. The king in his speech, October 26, 1775, reiterated his stern purposes. It is noticeable that in the comments made upon it by speakers in the opposition, the avowals of members in the Congress were confidently quoted as repelling the charge that they were aiming for independence; but General Conway said significantly, "They will undoubtedly prefer independence to slavery."

The delegates of the thirteen colonies—Georgia being now represented—met in Philadelphia, May 12, 1776, having now the whole bearings of the struggle fully before them. The members had found their way to the assurance that their professed loyalty to the constitution of the realm consisted with, and might even require, a defiance of its monarch. There were those who still held back. We note that personal alienations declared themselves between members, starting from differences of opinion or strength of resolve, as they faced the final question. Perhaps it is well that oblivion has been allowed to settle over the attitudes and words of some of the actors of the time, whether in or out of Congress. Gadsden, Lee, the Adamses, and Patrick Henry were ready and eager for the boldest venture, supported by Chase of Maryland, Ward of Rhode Island, Wolcott and Sherman of Connecticut, and at last by Wyeth of Virginia. Wilson of Pennsylvania held back. So did the strongly patriotic Dickinson, restrained by Quaker influence. He was yet to be reassured, and his ballot was to be the decisive one. Massachusetts should have been a unit; but Samuel Adams and Hancock were alienated, and Paine and Cushing were not yet full-strung, but the last-named was soon superseded by Gerry, who was in entire sympathy with the Adamses. Congress recommended the colonies whose governors had deserted their posts to set up governments of their own, if only for a temporary purpose, till constitutional rule should be reëstablished. Then, after an emphatic but calm restatement of grievances, and the failure of all efforts to secure a redress, Congress engaged with the question whether all the colonies might not be forced to set up such a government of their own. The dastardly conduct of Lord Dunmore, governor of Virginia, in following his own flight for refuge on board a frigate with a proclamation to stir an insurrection among the slaves, might well have left it to R. H. Lee, by direct instruction from his constituents, early in May, to announce that on an appointed day he should move for a declaration of independence. He did so on Thursday, the 7th of June. His motions were for such a declaration, with a complete dissolution of all political connection between the colonies and Great Britain; for the forming of foreign alliances, and a plan of confederation. John Adams seconded the motions. They were discussed on Saturday in a committee of the whole. On Monday, after a long debate, Rutledge moved a postponement of the question for three weeks. Up to this point Jefferson says that New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and South Carolina were not ready for the decision, and thought it prudent to wait, though fast stiffening for the issue.

On June 10th Congress resolved that the consideration of Mr. Lee's first proposed resolution—that declaring independence—be postponed to the 1st of July; but that no time should be lost in the interval, it appointed, on June 11th, a committee to prepare such a declaration. This committee was Jefferson, John Adams, Franklin, Sherman, and Robert R. Livingston.[667] This postponement was in deference to the unreadiness of the delegates of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and South Carolina to take the decisive step. Some unnamed member had procured the passage of a vote that on whichever side the majority should turn, the decision should be pronounced unanimous, for or against the resolutions. The vote of each colony was to count for one, whatever the number of its delegates, the majority in each delegation pronouncing for its colony. The debate was sharp and intensely earnest. The vote of Pennsylvania was divided. Those of the six colonies just named being in opposition, there was no decision. Two of the halting Pennsylvania delegates being induced to absent themselves on the next day, fifty delegates being present, the resolutions prevailed by a majority of one province.[668] They had been bitterly opposed by Livingston of New York, Dickinson and Wilson of Pennsylvania, and Rutledge of South Carolina. Argument, persuasion, and appeal were diligently pressed to draw the hesitating to acquiescence. Meanwhile several of the colonies were anticipating the action of Congress in taking their stand for independence: North Carolina, in April, 1776, and also Massachusetts, at the same date; Virginia, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and New Jersey followed; and New York, as we shall see, soon came into line.

The proposed measures of Congress, associated with the leading one of independence, were most sagaciously devised for dignifying the primary resolve and elevating the action which should sustain it above the character of a mere rebellion. Those measures assumed the rights and responsibilities of nationality. The issuing of letters of marque and reprisal, the making free of all the ports for commerce with all the world except Great Britain, and the inviting of foreign alliances, were exercises of the prerogatives of sovereignty, and were the reasons assigned by France for regarding the United States as a nation at war with another nation. On July 12th Congress appointed a committee of one delegate from each colony charged with reporting a plan of confederation, and another committee of five to propose a plan for foreign alliances.

The Declaration marked a crisis alike in the forum and for the people. It was read to Washington's army, and drew wild plaudits from officers and from the ranks. As rapidly as panting couriers could disperse it over the country it was formally received with parade and observance, and read in town and village. It gave life and inspiration for every successive measure to turn a purpose into an accomplished fact.[669]

Many of our writers, in tracing the working of the various opinions which aided in fostering the spirit of independence, have found reason to ascribe much influence to strong religious animosities, especially to hostility to the state religion of England. It might perhaps be difficult to trace sharply and directly through all the colonies any lines of division of this character attributable to such an agency, as distinct and positive as those which manifested themselves in secular affairs, but there can be no question that sectarian influences had an important part in the animosities of the time. It would have been but natural that in this matter the line between the loyal and the disloyal should have been drawn between the English Church and the dissenters, who were the vast majority of the colonists; but this rule was by no means without many marked exceptions. All the Episcopal ministers officiating in the colonies had received ordination in England. Their oath bound them to loyalty. Most of them, too, in the northern provinces, were pensioners of an English missionary society. The test applied to them when the spirit of rebellion was strengthening was whether they would read or omit in their services the prayers for the king. It stood little for them to plead in their defence their oath and their dependence on a foreign fund. Such a plea was a poor one, as being strictly personal and selfish, born of a love of ease and of a cringing spirit. Some of them left their pulpits, and maintained a discreet silence. Those who insisted upon fulfilling all the pledges and duties of their office were in many cases roughly handled. It is to be considered, however, that so far as sectarianism in religion would alienate the colonies from Great Britain, it could not have been a prime agent in the case, for then it would have alienated them from each other, to which result it did not avail. The Tory refugee Judge Jones uses the terms Presbyterians and Episcopalians as almost synonymous with the terms rebels and loyalists. But this was by no means true.[670] The leading patriot John Jay, with many others from his province, was an Episcopalian. The Episcopalians of Virginia, of Maryland, and of the Carolinas were as stiffly opposed to the importation here of English prelates as were the Congregationalists of New England. The Tory Galloway[671] traced our rebellious spirit to the same source as that of the English civil war, viz., to Puritanism. He wrote: "The disaffection is confined to two sets of dissenters, while the people of the Established Church, the Methodists, Lutherans, German Calvinists, Quakers, Moravians, etc., are warmly attached to the British government." Galloway exceeded the strict truth in that statement.

The numbers, position, and experiences of Episcopal ministers in the provinces at the period of the war have been recently presented in an elaborate and well-authenticated monograph on the subject.[672] From this it appears that there were at the time not far from two hundred and fifty clergymen, all of foreign ordination. The lack of Episcopal supervision brought with it laxity of discipline. At the southward the church gathered into it the wealthy, the officials of the government and of the army and navy, professional men, and merchants. But their clergy, instead of being, like their few brethren at the North, stipendiaries of a foreign society, largely derived their support from those to whom they ministered, and so, though being under the oath of allegiance, were more free to share the patriotic sentiments of the laity, and they did so. Clergy and laity in the Southern provinces seem, many of them, to have been as strongly opposed, for temporary or other reasons, to the introduction of a foreign prelacy as were those at the North. Several of the Episcopal clergy in the Middle and Southern provinces proved themselves most ardent patriots, not only in discourse but by taking chaplaincies in the Continental armies, and even serving in the ranks and as officers in command. The trial test for deciding their position was in the religious services required of them on the days appointed by Congress for thanksgiving or fasting. Their choice was not a free one between a full or a mutilated service of prayer. The severest sufferers of this class were among the Episcopal ministers of New York and Connecticut, who resolved to stand for loyalty. Some, however, trimmed to time and necessity; others were patriots. Provoost, afterwards the first Bishop of New York, espoused the side of the people.[673]

It was in New England that the "Puritanism" of which Galloway wrote had the prevailing influence; and a very energetic and effective influence it was, working with other agencies in making the English civil government all the more odious because of the lordly prelates, who ruled not only in church, but in state. The inherited and traditionary spirit of New England had kept alive the memory of the ecclesiastical tyranny which had developed Puritanism in Old England, and of the trials and sacrifices by which deliverance had been secured. Those very New England colonies in which the rebellious spirit was most vigorous had been in but recent years, by help alike of sympathizers and opponents, conservatives of the old ways and reformers with the new, working their own way of relief from their theocratic basis of government, and securing freedom for themselves in belief and worship, with progress in the severance of church and state. They could not patiently contemplate the establishment of prelacy among them. Two occasions, operating as warnings, had freshened the old Puritan spirit of New England just previous to the opening of civil contention. One was the project, which had been zealously pressed, of sending English bishops into the colonies, whose functions the popular mind refused to distinguish between those which they exercised as lords, both spiritual and temporal, in England and those of ordination and confirmation, etc., which was all that was required of them as "superior clergy" here. An animated pamphlet controversy had been waging on this subject a decade before the outbreak of hostilities, in which appeared as a champion on one side the bold and able minister Jonathan Mayhew of Boston, and on the other, Secker, Archbishop of Canterbury.[674] No English prelate ever had functions or presence on our territory. The other reason, for a revival of the hostility here against the Established Church, was found in the coming hither into the old Congregational parishes, and the maintenance here by an English missionary society, of a number of Episcopal ministers. It was charged—not, however, justly—that the benevolent founders of that society had endowed it solely for the support of missionaries to neglected and forlorn persons,—fishermen and others in the colonies,—whereas it was used to promote division and disaffection in places well provided with a ministry. This charge was overstrained, for no missionary was sent to any place where there were not those, few or many, who were actual members of the English Church, or who stood out against the doctrine and discipline of Congregationalism. None the less did hostility to the English Church help largely to stimulate the spirit of rebellion.[675]

The first provincial congress of Massachusetts, assembled in 1774, knew very well the grounds of their reliance when by resolution they sent an address to each and all of the ministers in the province, reminding them of the valued aid and sympathy which their common ancestors in the years of former trials had found in their religious guides, and earnestly appealing for their help and strong efforts among their people in resistance of the tyranny of the mother country. The New England ministers were not slow in responding to—indeed, they had in many cases anticipated—this appeal of their civil leaders. They had a marvellous skill for discerning the vital relations between politics and religion, while they had a strong repugnance to what was conveyed by the terms "church and state." With very few exceptions,—such, however, there were, in rare cases, of pastors in years and of timid spirits,—the ministers were foremost in inspiriting patriotism and in meeting all the emergencies of the times.[676]

The only organized and official measures taken by any one of the religious denominations in sympathy with the American Revolution was that of the Presbyterians, who had freed themselves from dependence on a civil establishment. The Scotch-Irish Presbyterians on the frontiers of Virginia and North Carolina had stoutly vindicated their religious rights against the Established Church in Virginia, and were among the foremost in asserting their independence of the mother country. With the sturdiest resolution they had successfully triumphed over the Episcopal party in New York and thwarted government influence in its behalf. John Witherspoon, the only clergyman in the Congress of 1776, gave by delegated authority the vote of the Presbyterians for independence.[677]

And now the question may well be asked, Where rests the chief responsibility for bringing to this result the protracted controversy between the mother realm and her colonies? The Declaration of Independence was yet to be made good by a severe struggle on the part of the colonies, and to be accepted by the other party in the issue. It is rarely, if indeed the case has any historical parallel, when so large a measure of the responsibility for bringing about a signal revolution in the great affairs of a nation can, as in this instance, be directly charged upon an individual, and that was his majesty George III.[678] The facts of the case with their full evidence stand now clearly certified. That Declaration, with the event which it signified, might have come in other ways. Agencies and events were working to it. But that it came when it did, and as it did, he at whose heavy cost it came was largely the conspicuous agent and cause of it. That this is so, let the following tracing of the stages of the developments attest. And by the charge here alleged is meant that the king was mainly instrumental in bringing about the result, not merely by an official or representative responsibility, nor by prerogative, but by the prompting of personal feeling and private decision. It is also to be admitted that the king may have been guided by the purest motives and the loftiest sense of duty to preserve in any way the jewels of his crown and the integrity of his empire. But none the less it was his will and resolve that decided the issue.

As we have seen, the effect of every measure of the British government brought to bear upon the colonies was directly the opposite of what had been intended. Threats and penalties exasperated, but did not intimidate. Seeming concessions and retractions did not conciliate. Contempt and defiance called out corresponding and reciprocal feelings. There was a strict parallelism between the ministerial inventions for securing the mastery and the patriot ingenuity and earnestness for nullifying them. The few incidental accompaniments of popular violence and mobs were so familiar to the people of England at home as to count for little. They were to be regretted and condemned, but they were fully offset by the indiscriminate and vengeful punishments which government visited upon them.

We are to remember that the king, if not the originator and adviser of all these measures, gave them his cordial approval. More and more, as the quarrel ripened, his personal will and resolve asserted themselves, even autocratically. When the catastrophe finally came, his prime minister frankly confessed, that by the king's urgency, and in compliance with his own view of the claims of loyalty, he had been acting against his own clear judgment of what was wise and right, if not against his conscience.[679] Who, then, so much as the king, as sole arbiter, by his own personal decision, substituted arms for debate? The colonies, no longer the aggressive party, were put on the defensive. Still, even after this dropping of the royal gage of battle, the Assembly of Pennsylvania, with its residuum of Quakerism, required of its members the old oath of allegiance to George III., and Dickinson reported to it strongly loyal instructions for its delegates. Is it strange that Franklin refused to take his seat in that body? Two years later,—March 17, 1778,—the king writes to Lord North: "No consideration in life shall make me stoop to opposition. Whilst any ten men in the kingdom will stand by me, I will not give myself up into bondage. I will rather risk my crown than do what I think personally disgraceful. It is impossible that the nation should not stand by me. If they will not, they shall have another king, for I will never put my hand to what will make me miserable to the last hour of my life."[680] And again, when the end was at hand, the king, writing to Lord North, March 7, 1780, says: "I can never suppose this country so lost to all ideas of self-importance as to be willing to grant American independence. If that word be ever universally adopted, I shall despair of this country being preserved from a state of inferiority. I hope never to see that day, for, however I am treated, I must love this country."[681]

Recalling the fact that in all previous remonstrances[682] and petitions, without a single exception, whether coming from a convention, an assembly, or a congress, the ministry and Parliament were made to bear the burden of all complaints and reproaches, we note with emphasis that in the Declaration of Independence, for the first time, "the present king of Great Britain" is charged as the offender. Its scathing invectives in its short sentences begin with "He." His tools and supporters are all lost sight of, passed unmentioned. This substitution of the monarch himself as chargeable, through his own persistency, with the whole burden heretofore laid at the door of his advisers indicates the necessity which Congress felt of seeming to sever their plain constitutional allegiance to the monarch, and of ignoring all dependence on his ministers or Parliament, whose supremacy over the colonies they had always denied. Hence the tone and wording of all the previous utterances of Congress, deferential and even fulsome as they now seem, in sparing the king, for the first time, in the Declaration, are changed to give the necessary legal emphasis of the capital letter in He. Indeed, the law and the man were essentially as one, for the candid monarch told John Adams, on his subsequent appearance as the minister of the United States, that he was the last person in his realm to consent to the independence of the colonies. The utter hopelessness of the measures of government was obvious to the wiser statesmen of Britain and to those whose observation was guided by simple common sense.[683]

A matter of sharp and reproachful criticism—which has not wholly disappeared from more recent pages of history and comment—was found in what certainly had the seeming of insincerity and duplicity in the earnest professions of loyalty made by leading patriots while the spirit of absolute independence, latent and but thinly veiled, was instigating measures of defiance, and even of open hostility. The patriots, it was boldly charged, had practised a mean hypocrisy. The shock of the disclosure was at the time sudden and severe. Joseph Galloway, though perhaps the most hostile and vengeful, was by no means the least able or the most estranged and disappointed of a class of very prominent men, who avowed that they had been alienated from the patriot cause by the exposed duplicity of its wiliest leaders. They had joined heart and hand in council and measures with those who professed to be seeking only a redress of grievances, with an unqualified loyalty as British subjects to the king and the constitution, and in a disavowal of any idea of independence.

On the other side of the water, the Declaration, as "throwing off the mask of hypocrisy" by the patriots, was a very painful shock to many who had been most friendly and earnest champions of the cause of the colonists. The members of the opposition in Parliament and in high places were taunted by the supporters of government for all their pleading in behalf of rebels. And when, besides the bold avowal of independence, the added measures of a suspension of all commerce with Great Britain, and of an alliance of the patriots with the hereditary enemy of their mother country, came to the knowledge of those who had been our friends, the consternation which it caused them was but natural. Manufacturers and merchants, against whose interests so heavy a blow had been dealt, and all Englishmen who scorned the French, our new ally, might with reason rank themselves as now our enemies. Of course, the ministry and the abetters of the most offensive measures of government availed themselves of the evidence now offered of what they had maintained was the ultimate purpose of the disaffected colonists, hypocritically concealed, and they confidently looked for a well-nigh unanimous approval and support of the vengeful hostilities at once entered upon. It was affirmed that the British officers and soldiers here, who had before been but half-hearted and lukewarm in fulfilling their errand, now became as earnest and impassioned in war measures as if they were fighting Indians, Frenchmen, or Spaniards. Such were really the effects wrought on both sides of the water, not merely by the bold avowal of independence, but by what was viewed as the exposure of a subtle and hypocritical concealment of the purpose of it under beguiling professions of loyalty.

What is there to be said, either by way of explanation or of justification, of the course ascribed to the patriots? It is well to admit freely that there was much said, if not done, that had the seeming of duplicity and insincerity, of secrecy of design and of sinuous dealing. And after yielding all that can be charged of this, we may insist that, in reality, it was nothing beyond the seeming. Neither disguise, nor duplicity, nor hypocrisy, nor artful or cunning intrigue, in any shape or degree, was availed of by the patriots. The result to which they were led was from the first natural and inevitable, and it was reached by bold and honest stages, in thinking out and making sure of their way. The facts are all clearly revealed to us in their course of development. The maturing of opinion, till what had been repelled as a calamity was accepted as a necessity, is traceable through the changing events of a few heavily burdened years, if not even of months and days, to say nothing of the symptoms of it which a keen perception may discover during the career of four generations of Englishmen on this continent. Its own natural stages of growth were reached just at the time that it was attempted to bring it under check by artificial restraint of the home government. That government compelled the colonists to ask themselves the two questions: first, if they were anything less than Englishmen; and further, if their natural rights were any less than those of men. There has been much discussion as to when and by whom the idea of American independence was first entertained. It would be very difficult to assign that conception to a date or to an individual. All that was natural and spontaneous in the situation of the colonists would be suggestive of it; all that was artificial, like the tokens of a foreign oversight in matters of government, would be exceptional or strange to it. Husbandmen, mechanics, and fishermen would not be likely to trouble themselves with the ways in which their relations as British subjects interfered with their free range in life. Larger and deeper thinkers, like Samuel Adams, would feel their way down to comprehensive root questions, sure at last to reach the fundamentals of the whole matter,—as, What has the British ministry and Parliament to do with us? It required nine years to mature the puzzling of a peasant over the question of a trifling tax into the conclusion of a republican patriot statesman. Every stage of this process is traceable in abounding public and private papers, with its advances and arrests, its pauses and its quickenings, its misgivings and assurances, in all classes of persons, and in its dimmest and its fullest phases. We have seen how it was working its way in the honest secrecy of a few breasts in the first Congress, even when repelled as a dreaded fatality. Samuel Adams is generally, and with sufficient evidence, credited as having been the first of the leading spirits of the revolt to have reached—at first in private confidence, steadily strengthening into the frankest and boldest avowal—the conviction that the issue opened between the colonies and the mother country logically, necessarily, and inevitably must result in a complete severance of the tie between them. Even at that stage of his earliest insight into the superficial aspect of the controversy, when he is quoted as if hypocritically saying one thing while he intended another, it will be observed that his strong professions of loyalty are qualified by parenthetical suggestions of a possible alternative. Thus, in the Address which he wrote for the Massachusetts Assembly, in 1768, to the Lords of the Treasury, his explicit professions of loyalty for his constituents close with the caveat that this loyalty will conform itself to acquiescence so far as "consists with the fundamental rules of the Constitution."[684] Of course, as the oppressive measures of government exasperated the patriots, they were not only led on to discern the full alternative before them, but were unreserved in their expressions of a willingness to meet it, at whatever cost. Still, however, what seemed like hesitation in the boldest was simply a waiting for the slow and timid to summon resolution for decisive action. Of the single measures in Congress preceding the Declaration of Independence, the most farcical and the most likely to be regarded as hypocritical was the second petition to the king, which his majesty spurned. His ministers had to compare with its adulatory insincerities some intercepted letters of John Adams, written nearly at the same time, stinging with defiance and treason. But John Adams well described this petition to the king as "Dickinson's Letter." Dickinson himself is the most conspicuous and true-hearted of the class of men who to the last shrunk from the severance of the tie to the mother country. Yet he was to be the one whose casting vote, by a substitute, was to ratify the great Declaration. There may have been weakness in his urgency that that petition should proffer a final hope of amity, but it was the prompting of thorough manliness and honesty. As we have seen, it was the royal scorn of that petition, backed by a wilful personal espousal of responsibility, which made the king the real prompter of the Declaration of Independence.[685]

Leaving out of view all obligations of the colonies to the mother country, there was still quite another class of very reasonable apprehensions which had a vast influence over the halting minds. What would be the relations of the severed and possibly contentious colonies to each other, with all their separate interests, rivalries, and jealousies? Might not anarchy and civil war make them rue the day when, in rejecting the tempered severity of the rule of a lawful monarch, they had forfeited the privilege of having an arbiter and a common friend?

Nor was this the only dread. The Indians were still a formidable foe on the frontiers. So far as they were held in check, it was largely by English arms and influence. Without anticipating the cruel and disgraceful complication of the trouble which was to come, and the aggravations of civil war, by the enlistment of these savages by England as her allies against her former subjects, it was enough for timid colonists looking into the future to realize the power of mischief which lurked with these wild men in the woods. Every further advance of the colonists beyond the boundaries already secured would provoke new hostilities, and remind the pioneers of the value to them of English armaments and reinforcements. And yet once more, those were by no means bugbear alarms which foreboded for the colonists, left to themselves, outrages from French and Spanish intrigue, ambition, and greed of territory. France and Spain had losses and insults to avenge against England, and might seek for reprisals on the undefended colonists. It needs only an intimation, without detail, of the apprehensions which either reason or imagination might conjure from this foreboding, to show how powerfully it might operate with prudent men in suspending their decision between rebellion and loyalty. All these considerations, taken separately and together, whether as resulting in slow and timid maturing of sentiment and of profession in Congress, or as influencing the judgment of patriot leaders, or as guiding the vacillating course of individuals and multitudes, may have given a seeming show of insincerity and duplicity to words contrasted with subsequent deeds. But a clear apprehension of all the alternatives which were then to be balanced will satisfy us that there was little room for hypocrisy to fill.

Some show of reason for charging upon the patriots duplicity and lack of downright frankness was found in their professions of a steadfast, but still a qualified, loyalty. If there was not at first some confusion or vagueness in their own ideas on this point, they certainly set themselves open to such a misunderstanding by the ministry as to leave it in doubt whether they knew their own minds or candidly declared them. The controversy, from its beginning till its close, was constantly alleged to start from this discriminating standard of loyalty: the colonists repudiated the exercise of authority over them by Parliament and the ministry, and yet avowed themselves faithful and loyal subjects of the king. The king could govern and act only through Parliament. How could they repudiate the authority of Parliament and respect that of the king? What was to be the basis, scope, and mode of exercise of his authority? They certainly could not have in view the exercise of an autocracy over them, the restoration of the old royal prerogative which a previous glorious revolution had shattered. The king could exercise his authority in the colonial assemblies only through governors, and those governors had been rendered powerless here. Even the sage and philosophic Franklin found himself perplexed on this point. Writing from London to his son in New Jersey, March 13, 1768, he says: "I know not what the Boston people mean; what is the subordination they acknowledge in their Assembly to Parliament, while they deny its power to make laws for them?"[686] Galloway pertinently asked of the first Congress, "if they had any other union of the two countries more constitutional in view, why did they not petition for it?" "The Congress, while they professed themselves subjects, spoke in the language of allies, and were openly acting the part of enemies."[687] How are we to reconcile two statements made by Pitt in the same speech, in January, 1776: "This kingdom has no right to lay a tax on the colonies." "At the same time, on every real point of legislation, I believe the authority of Parliament to be fixed as the Polar Star." Without any attempt to conceive or fashion a definition of their ideal, the good common sense of the patriots at last worked out the conclusion that their emancipation from the Parliament involved a dispensing with the king.[688]

There was no disguising the fact, however, that, with independence declared, there was no such unanimity of purpose among all the members of Congress, still less among their many-minded and vaguely-defined constituency. It was inevitable, therefore, that both a degree of arbitrariness towards halting and censorious objectors, and of harsh severity towards open resistants, should henceforward characterize the measures approved by the patriot leaders. There was a sagacious moderation and prudence in the measures taken by Congress to conciliate and reassure the half-hearted and the hesitating. For the final stand had been taken that nothing short of an achieved independence should be accepted as the issue.

The prime movers in the patriot cause continued to be the main workers for it, and gradually reinforced themselves by new and effective aiders. Astute and able men, well read in history and by no means without knowledge of international law and the methods of diplomacy, surveyed the field before them, provided for contingencies, and found full scope for their wits and wisdom. When we consider the distractions of the times, the overthrow of all previous authority, the presence and threats of anarchy, the lack of unanimity, and the number and virulence of discordant interests, and, above all, that Congress had only advisory, hardly instructive, powers, even with the most willing portion of its constituents, we can easily pardon excesses and errors, and heartily yield our admiration to the noble qualities and virtues of those who proved their claim to leadership. When we read the original papers and the full biographies of these men, we are impressed by the balance and force of their judgment, their power of expressing reasons and convictions, their calm self-mastery, and the fervor of their purposes.

[CRITICAL ESSAY ON THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION.]

THE source to which naturally we should first apply ourselves for the fullest information on the development of the purpose of independence would be the Journals of Congress. But our disappointment would be complete. The same reasons which enjoined on the members secrecy as to the proceedings seem to have deprived the record even of some things that were done and of almost every utterance in debate. We have to look to other sources, the most scattered and fragmentary, to learn the names even of the principal leaders in the debates, and from beginning to end we have not the report, scarcely a summary, of a single speech. Our reasonable inference from such hints is that some ten, or at most fifteen, members were the master-spirits in securing the adoption of measures, while they were opposed by some as earnest as themselves, but not as numerous. But whatever may have been written in the original Journals was subjected to a cautious selection when they were printed by a committee. It is only from Jefferson himself, for instance, that we learn (Randall's Jefferson, i. 15) how, somewhat to his chagrin, "the rhetoric" of his draft of the Declaration was toned down. Especially do the Journals, as printed, suppress all evidences of strong dissension, of which we have abundant hints in fragments from John and Sam. Adams, Franklin, Dickinson, Galloway, Jefferson, Jay, and Livingston. But the Journals do spread before us at length sundry admirable papers, drawn by able and judicious committees.[689]

The reader must turn to the notes appended to chapter i. of the present volume for an examination of some of the leading pamphlets occasioned by the Congresses of 1774 and 1775, and for an examination of their opposing views, with more or less warning of the inevitable issue of independence.

One may easily trace in the writings of Franklin, extending through the years preceding the Revolution, and through all the phases of the struggle, seeming inconsistencies in the expression of his opinions and judgment. But these are readily explicable by changes in time and circumstance. We must pause, however, upon the strong statement made by Lecky in the following sentence: "It may be safely asserted that if Franklin had been able to guide American opinion, it would never have ended in revolution."[690]

Opportune in the date of its publication, as well as of mighty cogency in its tone and substance, was that vigorous work by Thomas Paine, a pamphlet bearing the title "Common Sense." If we take merely the average between the superlatively exalted tributes paid to his work as the one supremely effective agency for bringing vast numbers of the people of the colonies to front the issue of independence, and the most moderate judgments which have estimated its real merit, we should leave to be assigned to it the credit of being the most inspiriting of all the utterances and publications of the time for popular effect. The opportuneness of the appearance of this remarkable essay consisted in the fact that it came into the hands of multitudes, greedy to read it, a few months before the burning question of independency was to be settled. The papers issued by Congress might well answer the needs of the most intelligent classes of the people, in reconciling them to the new phase of the struggle. But there were large numbers of persons who needed the help of some short and easy argument, homely in style and quotable between plain neighbors. And this eighteen-penny pamphlet met that necessity. It appeared anonymously. John Adams says it was ascribed to his pen. Paine had been in confidential intercourse with Franklin, and the sagacious judgment of that philosopher doubtless suggested the form and substance of some of its contents, and may have kept out of it some things less apt or wise. Washington, Franklin, and John Adams welcomed it as a vigorous agency for persuading masses of simple and honest men that their rights must now be taken into their own hands for vindication. The character of the writer alienated from him the regard of those who could and who would willingly have advanced his interests, and made him to multitudes an object of horror and contempt. Though his pamphlet bore the title of "Common Sense", Gouverneur Morris says that that was a quality which Paine himself wholly lacked. Posterity, however, may well accord to him as a writer the high consideration given to him by his contemporaries, of having happily met by his pen a crisis and a pause in the state of the popular mind. Franklin wrote that "the pamphlet had prodigious effects."[691]

Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations was published in the same year. Wise men have often affirmed that if it had appeared a generation earlier, and if the doctrines and principles which it advocated had passed into the minds of statesmen and economists, peaceful rather than warlike measures would have disposed of the controversy. It required the lapse of twoscore years to convince English statesmen and economists of the practical wisdom of the leading principles advanced by this college professor. He maintained the general viciousness and folly of the English colonial administration; that while even the restricted commercial monopoly was more generous than the colonial rule of any other governments, the prohibition of manufactures was mischievous and oppressive. He agreed with Dean Tucker, that a peaceful separation of the colonies would benefit rather than harm the mother country. Yet, under existing circumstances, such a separation was impracticable, because neither the government nor the people of the realm would seriously entertain the proposition.[692]

One of the best expositions of the views held by some of the Tory writers, that the seeds of independency were sown with the early settlements and nurtured through their history, is given in a tract by Galloway,[693] which was published in London in 1780, as Historical and Political Reflections on the Rise and Progress of the American Rebellion. In which the Causes of that Rebellion are pointed out, and the Policy and Necessity of offering to the Americans a System of Government founded in the Principles of the British Constitution, are clearly demonstrated. By the Author of Letters to a Nobleman on the Conduct of the American War. He pleads that the rebellion has been encouraged by the assertion "of the injustice and oppression of the present reign by a plan formed by the administration for enslaving the colonies", and asserts that the mother country had fostered the infancy and weakness of the colonies, had espoused their quarrels, and, at an enormous cost of debt, had defended them. "The colonies are very rich and prosperous, with more than a quarter of the population of Great Britain, and should share its burdens. The rebellion did not spring from a dread of being enslaved." The writer then ably and justly traces its origin to the principles of the Puritan exiles, from whose passion for religious freedom has grown that for civil independence. He attributes much influence helpful to rebellion to the organization among the Presbyterians at Philadelphia, in 1764, which united by correspondence with the Congregationalists of New England. The other sects were generally averse to measures of violent opposition to authority. The measures of government are vindicated, and all trouble is traced to a faction in New England, sympathized with and led on by a similar faction at home. The "Circular Letter", bringing the colonies into accord, wrought the mischief. Two sharply divided parties at once were formed, or proved to exist: the one defining and standing for the right of the colonies with a redress of grievances, on the basis of a solid constitutional union with the mother country, and opposed to sedition and all acts of violence; the other resolved by all means, even though covert and fraudulent, to throw off allegiance, appeal to arms, run the venture of anarchy, and assert, and if possible attain, independence. The latter party, acting with some temporary reserve and caution, opposed all peaceable propositions, and covertly worked for their own ends. They used most effectively a system of expresses between Philadelphia and the other towns, Sam. Adams being the artful and diligent fomenter of all this mischief. By his guile, Congress was brought to approve the Resolves of the Mass. Suffolk Conference, which declared "that no obedience is due to acts of Parliament affecting Boston", and provided for an organization of the provincial militia against government. He proceeded to argue that "the American faction", as in the fourth resolve of their Bill of Rights, explicitly declare their colonial independence. This was followed by an address to his majesty,—not calling it a petition,—and which the writer proceeded to analyze with much acuteness, as being vague and evasive in its professions, and suggestive of conditions which would prove satisfactory. Finally, "the mask was thrown off", and the casting vote of the "timid and variable Mr. Dickinson" carried the Declaration of Independence. "Samuel Adams, the great director of their councils, and the most cautious, artful, and reserved man among them, did not hesitate, as soon as the vote of independence had passed, to declare in all companies that he had labored upwards of twenty years to accomplish the measure." Mr. Galloway closes with sharp strictures upon the bewildered and vacillating policy which the government has heretofore pursued, and pleads for a firm and generous "constitutional union" between the realm and the colonies. The growth of the spirit of independence necessarily makes a part of all general histories of the war, which are characterized in another place.

[EDITORIAL NOTES.]

The claim of Chalmers that the passion for independence had latently existed from the very foundation of the New England colonies[694] had been early denied by Dummer in his Defence of the N. E. Charters. John Adams[695] had been outspoken in his advocacy of independence for more than a year before R. H. Lee introduced his resolution into Congress. He had avowed it in letters, which the British intercepted in July, 1775, and printed in a Boston newspaper. If Josiah Quincy, Jr. (Memoirs, 250, 341), can be believed, he found Franklin in London in 1774 holding ideas "extended on the broad scale of total emancipation" (Sparks's Franklin, i. 379). The resolves of Mecklenburg County in North Carolina, in May, 1775, were strongly indicative. John Jay traced the beginning of an outspoken desire to the rejection by the king of the petition of the Congress of 1775 (N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg., July, 1776). In the autumn of that year it is certain that the passion for independence animated the army round Boston (Frothingham's Siege of Boston, 263), and in December James Bowdoin was confident that the dispute must end in independence (Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc., xii. 228). There was very far from any general adhesion to the belief in its inevitableness at all times during 1775. Washington was not conscious of the wish (Sparks, i. 131, ii. 401; Smyth, ii. 457). Gov. Franklin was expressing to Dartmouth the prevalence of a detestation of such views (Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc., xiv 342). The English historians have dwelt on this (Mahon, vi. 92, 94; Lecky, iii. 414, 447, iv. 41).[696]

AUTOGRAPHS OF THE MECKLENBURG COMMITTEE, MAY 31, 1775.

From the plate in W. D. Cooke's Rev. Hist. of No. Carolina, p. 64. Cf. Lossing's Field-Book, ii. 619, for another fac-simile and accounts of the signers; also see C. L. Hunter, Sketches of Western North Carolina (Raleigh, 1877, p. 39). It has been strenuously claimed and denied that, at a meeting of the people of Mecklenburg County, in North Carolina, on May 20, 1775, resolutions were passed declaring their independence of Great Britain. The facts in the case appear to be these:—On the 31st of May, 1775, the people of this county did pass resolutions quite abreast of the public sentiment of that time, but not venturing on the field of independency further than to say that these resolutions were to remain in force till Great Britain resigned its pretensions. These resolutions were well written, attracted notice, and were copied into the leading newspapers of the colonies, North and South, and can be found in various later works (Lossing's Field-Book, ii. 619, etc.). A copy of the S. Carolina Gazette containing them was sent by Governor Wright, of Georgia, to Lord Dartmouth, and was found by Bancroft in the State Paper Office, while in the Sparks MSS. (no. lvi.) is the record of a copy sent to the home government by Governor Martin of North Carolina, with a letter dated June 30, 1775. Of these resolutions there is no doubt (Frothingham's Rise of the Republic, p. 422). In 1793, or earlier, some of the actors in the proceeding, apparently ignorant that the record of these resolutions had been preserved in the newspapers, endeavored to supply them from memory, unconsciously intermingling some of the phraseology of the Declaration of July 4th in Congress, which gave them the tone of a pronounced independency. Probably through another dimness of memory they affixed the date of May 20, 1775, to them. These were first printed in the Raleigh Register, April 30, 1819. They are found to resemble in some respects the now known resolves of May 31st, as well as the national Declaration in a few phrases. In 1829 Martin printed them, much altered, in his North Carolina (ii. 272), but it is not known where this copy came from. In 1831 the State printed the text of the 1819 copy, and fortified it with recollections and certificates of persons affirming that they were present when the resolutions were passed on the 20th: The Declaration of Independence by the Citizens of Mecklenburg County, N. C., on the twentieth day of May, 1775, with documents, and proceedings of the Cumberland Association (Raleigh, 1831). This report of the State Committee is printed also in 4 Force, ii. 855. The resolves are reprinted in Niles's Reg. (1876, p. 313); in Caldwell's Greene; in Lossing (ii. 622), and in other places. Frothingham says he has failed to find any contemporary reference in manuscript or print to these May 20th resolutions. Jefferson (Memoir and Corresp., iv. 322; Randall's Jefferson, 1858, vol. iii. App. 2) denied their authenticity, and J. S. Jones supported their genuineness in his Defence of the Revolutionary History of North Carolina (Boston, 1834). In 1847 Rev. Thomas Smith, in his True Origin and Source of the Mecklenburgh and National Declaration of Independence, agreed to the priority of the May 20th resolutions, but thought that both those and the national Declaration were drawn in part from the ordinary covenants of the Scottish Presbyterians,—hence agreeing naturally in some of their phraseology.

The principal attempts to sustain the authenticity of the resolutions of May 20th are F. L. Hawks's lecture in W. D. Cooke's Revolutionary Hist. of North Carolina, and W. A. Grahame's Hist. Address on the Mecklenburg Centennial at Charlotte, N. C. (N. Y. 1875). The adverse view, held generally by students, is best expressed in J. C. Welling's paper in the No. Amer. Rev., April, 1874, and in H. B. Grigsby's Discourse on the Virginia Convention of 1776 (p. 21). John Adams was surprised on their production in 1819 (Works, x. 380-83). Cf. further in Moore's North Carolina, i. 187; No. Carolina Univ. Mag., May, 1853; Bancroft's United States, orig. ed., vii. 370, and final revision, iv. 196, and also in Hist. Mag., xii. 378; Gay's Pop. Hist. U. S., iii. 474; Lossing's Field-Book, ii. 619; Johnson's Traditions and Reminiscences of the Amer. Rev. in the South (Charleston, 1851, p. 76); Amer. Hist. Rec., iii. 200; Mag. of Amer. Hist., July, 1882, p. 507; Southern Lit. Messenger, v. 417, 748.

The antedating of the Congressional Declaration of July 4, 1776, by local bodies, stirred beyond a wise prudence, might well have happened in days when the air was full of such feelings; but they were of little effect, except the Suffolk Resolves of Sept. 6, 1774, which were adopted by the Congress of 1774. Perhaps the earliest of these ebullitions were some votes passed by the town of Mendon, in Massachusetts, in 1773 (Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc., April, 1870). A fac-simile of the record is given in Gay's Pop. Hist. U. S., iii. 472.

Early in 1776 the passion for independence gathered head. In March, Edmund Quincy thought the feeling was universal in the Northern colonies (N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg., 1859, p. 232). Francis Dana, just home from England, was saying that he was satisfied no reconciliation was possible (Sparks, Corresp. of the Rev., i. 177). The probability of independence was recognized in the instructions which Congress gave to Silas Deane in March, on his sailing for Europe. In April came the violent measure in Congress of abolishing the British custom laws. The press was beginning to give the warning note,[697] but not without an occasional counter statement, as when the N. Y. Gazette (April 8, 1776) asserted that Congress had never lisped a desire for republicanism or independence. Sam Adams was urgent (Wells, ii. 397). John Adams was writing to Winthrop, of Cambridge, to restrain him from urging Massachusetts to break precipitately the union of the colonies (Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., xliv. 298), and he was counselling Joseph Ward to be patient, for it "required time to bring the colonies all of one mind; but", he adds, "time will do it" (Scribner's Mag., xi. 572).

May was the decisive month, and events marched rapidly. On the 1st, Massachusetts set up a committee to conduct the government of the province in the name of the people.[698] On the 4th the last Colonial Assembly of Rhode Island renounced its allegiance (Newport Hist. Mag., Jan., 1884, p. 131). A letter of Gen. Lee to Patrick Henry, on May 7th, has raised a doubt of Henry's steadfastness (Force, 5th ser., i. 95), but Henry assisted in that vote of the Virginia Convention, on the 15th, which instructed its representatives in Congress to move a vote of independence.[699] R. H. Lee wrote to Charles Lee that "the proprietary colonies do certainly obstruct and perplex the American machine."[700] Dickinson, as representing these proprietary governments, saw something different from independency in John Adams's motion of May 15th, that "the several colonies do establish governments of their own;" but when that vote had passed, Adams and everybody else, as he says, considered it was a practical throwing off of allegiance, and rendered the formal declaration of July 4th simply necessary.[701] Hawley and Warren now wrote to Sam Adams, inquiring why this hesitancy in declaring what even now exists? (Wells, ii. 393); and Winthrop urges the same question upon John Adams (Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., xliv. 306).

THOMAS JEFFERSON.
(After picture owned by T. J. Coolidge, of Boston.)

After a painting in monochrome by Stuart, which was formerly at Monticello, and is now owned by Jefferson's great-grandson, T. Jefferson Coolidge, of Boston. It was painted during Jefferson's presidency. An engraving from a copy owned by Mrs. John W. Burke, of Alexandria, Va., is given in John C. Fremont's Memoirs of my Life, vol. i. p. 12 (N. Y., 1887). A portrait of Jefferson, three quarters length, sitting, with papers in his lap, was painted for John Adams by M. Brown, and is engraved in Bancroft's United States, orig. ed., vol. viii. A picture by Neagle is engraved in Delaplaine's Repository (1835). The profile by Memin is in Gay's Pop. Hist. U. S., iii. 484. There are various likenesses by Stuart: a full-face and a profile, owned by T. Jefferson Coolidge, of Boston,—the profile is mentioned above, and the full-face is one of a series of the Five Presidents, and it has been engraved in Higginson's Larger History; a full-length, belonging to the heirs of Col. T. J. Randolph, of Edgehill, Va. (engraved in stipple by D. Edwin); and other pictures in the Capitol, in the White House, at Bowdoin College, and in the possession of Edw. Coles, of Philadelphia (engraved by J. B. Forrest). The picture engraved in Sanderson's Signers, vii., is a Stuart. A photogravure, made of the one at Bowdoin College, is given in an account of the art collections there, issued by the college.

Lossing, in a paper on "Monticello", Jefferson's home, in Harper's Mag., vol. vii., pictures some of the memorials of Jefferson (cf. also Scribner's Monthly, v. 148), and adds views of the houses of other signers of the Declaration. This is done also by Brotherhead in his Book of the Signers, together with rendering in fac-simile autograph papers of each of them. Cf. J. E. Cooke on Jefferson in Harper's Mag., liii. p. 211; and also "The Virginia Declaration of Independence, or a group of Virginia Statesmen", with various cuts, in the Mag. of Amer. History, May, 1884, p. 369, giving portraits of Archibald Cary, Edmund Pendleton, Patrick Henry, R. H. Lee, Geo. Mason, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Benj. Harrison, Edmund Randolph, James Madison, with views also of Gunston Hall (Mason's home), Henry's house, Harrison's mansion of Berkeley, and of the old Raleigh tavern, associated with the patriots' meetings.

As the debates went on, reassuring notes came from New England in respect to the Virginia resolutions. Connecticut took action on June 14th (Hinman's Connecticut during the Rev., 94). Langdon wrote from New Hampshire, June 26th, that he knew of none who would oppose it (Hist. Mag., vi. 240). The vote of July 2d finished the issue. Honest belief, intimidation, a run for luck, and more or less of self-interest[702] had made the colonies free on paper, and compelled anew the conflict which was to make their pretensions good.

STATE HOUSE, PHILADELPHIA, 1778.

This view of the building in which Congress sat is from the Columbian Magazine, July, 1787. Cf. Scharf and Westcott's Philadelphia, i. 322, and Egle's Pennsylvania, p. 186; Harper's Mag., iii. 151. An architect's drawing of the front is on a folding sheet in A new and complete Hist. of the Brit. Empire in America (London, 1757?). Cf. other views in Lossing's Field-Book, ii. 272, 288. A water-color view by R. Peale is now preserved in the building. Cf. Belisle's Hist. of Independence Hall; Col. F. M. Etting's Memorials of 1776, his Hist. of the Old State House (1876), and his paper in the Penn Monthly, iii. 577; Lossing and others in Potter's Amer. Monthly, vi. 379, 455, vii. 1, 67, 477; John Savage's illustrated article in Harper's Monthly, xxxv. p. 217. Between 1873 and 1875 the hall was restored nearly to its ancient appearance, and now has some of the furniture in it used at the time of the Declaration. Cf. view in Gay, iii. 481, and Higginson's Larger Hist., 278. It has become a museum to commemorate the Revolutionary characters. The reports of the committee of restoration were printed. Cf. Scharf and Westcott, i. 318, and Col. Etting's History; also B. P. Poore's Descriptive Catal. of Government Publications, p. 945.

For the conditions of living in Philadelphia, and the appearance of the town at this time and during the war, see Watson's Annals; Scharf and Westcott's Philadelphia (ch. xvi., 1765-1776, xvii., 1776-1778, xviii., 1778-1783); Henry C. Watson's Old Bell of Independence (Philad., 1852,—later known as Noble Deeds of our Forefathers); R. H. Davis in Lippincott's Mag. (July, 1876), xviii. 27, and in Harper's Monthly, lii. pp. 705, 868; and F. D. Stone on "Philadelphia Society a hundred years ago, or the reign of Continental money." in Penna. Mag. of Hist., iii. 361. The diaries of Christopher Marshall (Albany, 1877) and of James Allen (Penna. Mag. of Hist., July, 1885, pp. 176, 278, 424) are of importance in this study.

ORIGINAL DRAFT OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.

This reproduces only the sentences near the beginning in the handwriting of Thomas Jefferson, showing his corrections. Later in the manuscript there are corrections, of no great extent, in the handwriting of John Adams and Benj. Franklin. The original paper is in the Patent Office at Washington, and is printed in Jefferson's Writings, i. 26; in Randall's Jefferson; in the Declaration of Independence (Boston, 1876, published by the city), where is also a reduced fac-simile of the engraved document as signed. Cf. Guizot's Washington, Atlas. Lossing (Field-Book, ii. 281) gives a fac-simile of a paragraph nearly all of which was omitted in the final draft, as was the paragraph respecting slavery (Jefferson's Memoir and Corresp., i. p. 16). A letter of Jefferson to R. H. Lee, July 8, 1776, accompanying the original draft, showing the changes made by Congress, is in Lee's Life of R. H. Lee, i. 275. For accounts of various early drafts, and for John Adams's instrumentality in correcting it, see C. F. Adams's John Adams, i. 233, ii. 515. Cf. also Parton's Jefferson, ch. 21; and his Franklin, ii. 126. John Adams contended that the essence of it was in earlier tracts of Otis and Sam. Adams (Works, ii. 514).

On the literary character of the document, see Greene's Historical View, p. 382; the lives of Jefferson by Tucker, Parton, Randall, John T. Morse, Jr. The similarity of the preamble of the Constitution of Virginia and certain parts of the Declaration have been taken to show that Jefferson plagiarized (New York Review, no. 1), but the testimony of a letter of George Wythe to Jefferson, July 27, 1776, seems to make it clear that Jefferson was the writer of that part of the Constitution, though Geo. Mason formed the body of it. Cf. also Wirt's Patrick Henry and Tucker's Jefferson.

The text of the Declaration as Jefferson originally wrote it will be found in Randall's Jefferson, p. 172; Niles's Weekly Register, July 3, 1813; Timothy Pickering's Review of the Cunningham Correspondence (1824), the Madison Papers. These copies do not always agree, since different drafts were followed. It is given, with changes indicated as made by Congress, in Jefferson's Works, i.; Russell's Life and Times of Fox; Lee's R. H. Lee. John Adams (Works, ii. 511) gives the reasons why Jefferson was put at the head of the committee for drafting the Declaration (Potter's American Monthly, vii. 191).

Trumbull's well-known picture of the committee presenting the Declaration in Congress was made known through A. B. Durand's engraving in 1820. The medals commemorating the event are described in Baker's Medallic Portraits of Washington, p. 32. The house in Philadelphia in which Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence is shown in Scharf and Westcott's Philadelphia (i. 320); Watson's Annals of Philadelphia (iii.); Brotherhead's Signers (1861, p. 110); Potter's American Monthly, vi. 341; Gay's Pop. Hist. U. S., iii. 483; Higginson's Larger Hist. U. S., 274. The desk on which he wrote it was for a long time in the possession of Mr. Joseph Coolidge of Boston, and at his death passed by his will to the custody of Congress. Randall's Jefferson, i. 177; Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc., iii. 151.