Yale University Library 39002003954600 lit: * YALE ? VNIVERSITY » 3 ? L I B R,A R,Y » A SHORT HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE In Two Volumes A SHORT HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE Volume I. (To 1789) The Foundations of American Nationality By Evarts Boutell Greene Professor of History, University of Illinois Volume II. (1783 to the present time) The Development of American Nationality By Carl Russell Fish Professor of American History, University of Wisconsin Benjamin Fbanklin THE FOUNDATIONS OE AMERICAN NATIONALITY BY EVARTS BOUTELL GREENE *#• PROFESSOR OF AMERICAN HISTORY, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY FORMERLY PROFESSOR OF HISTORY, UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AMERICAN BOOK COMPANY NEW YORK CINCINNATI CHICAGO BOSTON ATLANTA Copyright, 1922, by AMERICAN BOOK COMPANY All Rights Reserved FOUND. AMER. NATIONALITY E. P. 9 MADE IN U.S.A. GENERAL PREFACE The authors hope that this " Short History of the American People " may serve the purposes of two classes of readers. They have aimed, in the first instance, to provide for college undergraduates pursuing an introductory course in American history, a general manual which will embody, in some meas ure at least, the enlarged knowledge and the new points of view made possible by the results of research in recent years. They believe also that this history will meet the requirements of the general reader who desires a comprehensive view of the subject within reasonable compass. For the student and the general reader alike, it is hoped that the bibliographical notes may point the way to more extended studies. The aim of the authors is not so much to present a bal anced narrative of events, as to describe those movements and forces which have left their permanent impress upon the national character and institutions. The first volume {The Foundations of American Nationality, before 1789) deals with the molding of the varied European elements and the several detached colonies into an independent and united nation ; the second {The Development of American Nationality, 1783 to the Present Time) deals with the development of the nation so formed. While any division of the subject matter of history occasions perplexity and disagreement, the authors believe that the character of the problems confronting the people of the time, and the character of the materials which the historian must employ, permanently differentiate the colo nial period from the national, and that the two can best be treated by different men. In order, however, that each author might have full liberty to express his views, the volumes over lap for the period 1783 to 1789. PREFACE TO VOLUME I Forty years have now passed since George Bancroft closed his History of the United States with the establish ment in 1789 of our present federal system. Since that time the work of many competent historians has served to establish a better balance; colonial history can no longer claim anything like the relative attention which it received in the days of Bancroft and his contemporaries. It is, nevertheless, certain that the characteristic institutions and ideals of the United States cannot be fully under stood without tracing them back to their beginnings in colonial times and on European soil. It is equally certain that the scientific student of American origins is no longer content with the older inter pretations. For the past three decades, such scholars as Channing, Turner, Andrews, Beer, and Osgood have exploited new materials, suggested new points of view, and often made necessary the abandonment, or at least the reconsideration, of time-honored traditions. It seems worth while, therefore, to take a new account of stock — to trace in a single volume, for the general reader as well as for the student, the main outlines of our earlier history as they now appear after a quarter-century of research and discussion. Any such survey must of course be provisional only, because many phases of the subject have not yet been adequately investigated. The author has tried to write without bias, whether for or against traditional views, and with an open mind for new facts and new theories of interpretation. With the general tendency of recent historical literature toward fuller recognition of economic and social, as dis- viii PREFACE TO VOLUME I tinguished from strictly political, history, the author is in full sympathy; and the allotment of space has been planned accordingly. It is well known also that many phases of colonial history have been given new meaning by relating this development more closely to that of the great empire of which the colonies formed only a part, though an increas ingly important part. With full recognition of this imperial background, the author has nevertheless felt justified in emphasizing those aspects of colonial experience which seem most significant for the subsequent development of the American nation. The brief bibliographical notes at the end of each chapter have been prepared for readers rather than for investi gators; the latter will necessarily search for additional material through the standard bibliographical aids and in the footnotes of secondary authorities dealing with special periods or topics. For every chapter some illustrative material from the sources is indicated; but, in general, the lists do not include extensive documentary publications, such as legislative journals or statutes. It is obviously impossible also to make more than a very limited selection from the great mass of monographic and periodical litera ture which has been published, especially during the past three decades. While assuming full responsibility for all errors of omis sion or commission, I am under special obligations to Professor Carl Russell Fish of the University of Wisconsin, who read the volume in manuscript, and to my colleague, Professor Laurence M. Larson of the University of Illinois, who read the first proof. Evarts B. Greene GENERAL REFERENCES The most essential works of general reference for the period covered by this volume are the following: Channing, E., Hart, A. B., and Turner, F. J., Guide to the Study and Reading of American History, Boston, 191 2. The best introduction to the bibliography of American history. Channing, E., A History of the United States, 5 vols, so far issued, N. Y., 1905-1921. (Cited as Channing, United States.) The first three volumes are the leading authority on this period. Hart, A. B., Editor, The American Nation: A History. 28 vols., N. Y., 1904-1908. Each volume has a separate author and the first ten volumes cover this period. Useful both for narrative and bib liography. (Cited by individual authors.) Wtnsor, J., Editor, Narrative and Critical History of America. 8 vols., Boston, 1884-89. (Cited as Winsor, America.) Deals mainly with the period before 1789. Written many years ago but still indispensable, especially as a guide to the sources of information. The most important of the older authorities covering the whole field is Bancroft, G., History of the United States \j4gz-if8g'\. Author's last revision 6 vols., N. Y., 1883-1885. (Cited as Bancroft, United States.) Largely superseded but still useful on many topics. A. Johnson, Editor, Chronicles of America, New Haven, 1918-1921 has some inter esting volumes on the colonial period. (Individual volumes are cited by author and title.) The following one-volume books cover the colonial era: Andrews, C. M., The Colonial Period (Home University Library), N. Y., 1912 (A brief summary by a leading authority); C. Becker, Beginnings of the American People, N. Y., 1915 (Suggestive); Bolton, H. E. and Mar shall, T. M., The Colonization of North America, 1492-1783, N. Y., 1920 (Brings out the international background of English colonization). Useful collections of sources are: MacDonald, W., Select Charters Illustrative of American History, 1606-1775, N. Y., 1904, and his Select Documents Illustrative of the History of the United States, N. Y., 1909. These are cited as Select Charters, and Select Documents. (A less com plete collection is his Documentary Source-Book of American History, 1606-IQ13, N. Y., 1916.) Hart, A. B., American History Told by Con- is. X GENERAL REFERENCES temporaries, 4 vols., N. Y., 1897-1901. (Cited as Hart, Contemporaries.) Stedman, E. C. and Hutchinson, E. M., Library of American Literature, 11 vols., N. Y., 1888-1890. J. F. Jameson, Ed., Original Narratives of Early American History is a more extensive series for the seventeenth century. A good collection of maps with suggestive notes on historical geog raphy is Fox, D. R., Harper's Atlas of American History, N. Y., 1920. There are also some very convenient maps in Shepherd, W. R., Histor ical Atlas, N. Y., 1921; and in Muir, R., Hammond's New Historical Atlas for Students, N. Y. Avery, E. M., History of the United States, 7 vols., Cleveland, 1904-1910, has many excellent illustrations. CONTENTS PAGE General References ix chapter I. The European Inheritance i II. The English Outlook on America 20 III. The Virginia Pioneers 45 IV. The Chesapeake Colonies, 1632 to 1688 67 V. New England Pioneers 87 VI. The Puritan Commonwealths, 1635 to 1676 112 VII. Expansion and Conquest 130 VEIL English Colonization oe the Hudson and Dela ware Valleys, 1664 to 1688 155 IX. Imperialism and Self-Government 178 X. French and Spanish Rivals, 1608 to 1713 207 XI. The Empire and the Colonies 226 XII. Provincial New England 257 XIII. Expansion in the Middle Provinces 281 XIV. Expansion in the South 311 XV. English and American Ways 338 XVI. The Struggle for the West and the Passing of New France 357 XVn. Imperial Problems and Policies, 1760 to 1766.... 388 XVEH. The Eve of Revolution, 1766 to 1774 414 XLX. Revolution, 1774 to 1776 437 XX. The Opposing Forces 459 XXI. Europe and America, 1776 to 1780 475 XXII. Independence Won 496 XXin. Republican Diplomacy, 1779 to 1784 512 XXIV. Independent America 526 xii CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE XXV. Republican Principles in Reconstruction 547 XXVI. Federal Problems, 1783 to 1787 565 XXVII. The Great Convention 584 XXVIII. The New Union 603 PORTRAITS Benjamin Franklin (Portrait by B. Wilson, 1759) Frontispiece Sir Thomas Smith (Engraving by E. Passe, 1616) 53 John Winthrop (Portrait belonging to the American Antiqua rian Society) 99 William Byrd, H (From a contemporary portrait) 328 William Pitt (Portrait by Hoare, National Portrait Gallery, London) 380 George Washington (Portrait by C. W. Peale, 1772) 443 John Adams (Head and bust in small original of Trumbull's Signing of the Declaration of Independence, Yale School of Art) 468 MAPS Western Europe about 1600 j^ Section of the "Wright-Hakluyt" Map (An English View of the North Atlantic World in 1600) 28, 2g European Enterprise in America, 1600-1654 37 Physical map of the Eastern Part of the United States 44 English Continental Colonies to 1684 I04 Extension of Royal Governments 1 683-1 702 188 North America and the Caribbean Region after the Treaty of Utrecht, 1713 224 Principal Sea Routes of Colonial Commerce, 1 700-1 750... 244, 245 International Frontiers, 1739-1755 366 British Empire in North America, 1763-1775 389 Europe and America, 177S-1783 476, 477 The American People, 1783-1790 ' S30 THE FOUNDATIONS OF AMERICAN NATIONALITY CHAPTER I THE EUROPEAN INHERITANCE The development of the people now politically organized The in the United States of America is in a very true sense a part tSround of European history; for it is the record of European enter prise on American soil, of the transfer to a new environment of social habits and ideals which, though greatly changed by American conditions, are still essentially a phase of Euro pean civilization. The true starting point for the history of the United States is not, therefore, the study of aboriginal America, nor even the process by which America became known to Europeans; it is rather the European world from which the colonists came, the stock of traditions and pre judices which they inherited from their fathers, and the special characteristics of the age in which they lived. More definitely still, we must first try to understand the English England and the Englishmen of the early seventeenth cen- ongms- tury. It is indeed true, as Thomas Paine said in his Common Sense, that America is the child not of England only but of Europe; nevertheless, our earlier history is primarily con cerned with the emigration, and adaptation to American life, of English men and English institutions. It was in 1606, three years after the death of Queen Elizabeth, that the founders of the first successful English colony in America set out from the mother country. The foundation of twelve of the thirteen colonies which afterwards formed the United States of America was mainly the work of men then living, THE EUROPEAN INHERITANCE Englandin 1606. Population. their children, and their grandchildren. The social experi ence of these three generations, in the country from which most of them came, determined to a large extent their out look upon life and the institutions which they founded in the New World. To understand the England of 1606, we must get rid of many associations which gather about the British world power of the present day. When James I was crowned in 1603, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland did not exist. In the English Parliament of that day only England and Wales were included. Though James I, King of England, was also James VI, King of Scotland, the two kingdoms were distinct, and for a hundred years more Scotland was regarded by Englishmen as a foreign coun try. Ireland was a half-foreign dependency, with a sub ordinate parliament of its own but without representation in the English Parliament. Indeed Ireland was itself con sidered a proper field for colonization and in the seventeenth century the northern province of Ulster was settled by Scotchmen and Englishmen, partly displacing the native Irish. The Indian Empire of to-day was still undreamed of and there were no "dominions beyond the seas," except the shadowy claims to North America based upon the dis coveries of the Cabots and a few unsuccessful attempts at settlement. In the British colony planting of the early seventeenth century, Scotchmen, Irishmen, and even Welsh men were of minor importance; for the pioneers of New England and the Chesapeake colonies alike, the mother country was England proper. The population of England in 1606 was hardly five million, a small fraction of the present number. Even then, however, it was commonly believed that the country was overcrowded and needed an outlet for its surplus popu lation. Sir George Peckham, a well-known promoter of colonization, declared that since England had for a long ENGLISH SOCIETY 3 time enjoyed peace and freedom from serious pestilence, "there are at this day great numbers (God he knoweth) which live in such penurie and want, as they could be con tented to hazard their lives, and to serve one yeere for meat, drinke, and apparell only, without wages, in hope thereby to mend their estates." During the latter part of the six teenth century, the natural increase of population was reenforced by immigrants from the Continent, especially Protestants from the Netherlands who had been driven from home by the intolerance of Philip II. The people of England in 1606 were divided quite dis- Social tinctly into social classes. One contemporary writer names four of these classes. First come the "gentlemen," includ ing not only the nobility of various grades but also "they that are simplie called gentlemen." Among the latter were counted the landed gentry, scholars, professional men, and military officers. It was one of the essential marks of a gentleman that he could live without manual labor. Second in order were the merchants, who had increased decidedly in numbers and importance during the Tudor period and were thought by the country people to be responsible for the higher cost of living. The third class were the yeomen or small farmers, who by good management often became prosperous, so that their sons at least might receive the benefits of university education, "live without labour," and so rise into the class of gentlemen. At the bottom of the social scale were the peasants in the country and the me chanics and smaller tradespeople in the towns. This last class did not count for much politically, having "neither voice nor authoritie in the commonwealth"; they were "to be ruled and not to rule over." Nevertheless, they were called upon to fill minor offices in towns and country parishes. England was still mainly an agricultural country, but it Economic was passing through radical economic changes which affected almost every element of the population. In the southeastern THE EUROPEAN INHERITANCE Joint-stock companies. Economic changes. counties especially, from which many of the American colonists came, woolen manufactures were developing strongly; their growth and protection against undesirable competition was an important phase of British policy dur ing the colonial era. Furthermore, the discovery of America, the increased supply of precious metals, and the constantly broadening opportunities for trade at home and abroad were developing a strong mercantile class who were not only able to live well but ready to invest their capital in pro fitable enterprises abroad as well as at home. The ad vantages of combination were already recognized and many joint-stock companies were chartered by Elizabeth and James I for the purpose of carrying on foreign trade. Among the companies so organized were the Muscovy Com pany, first chartered in 1555, a few years before the ac cession of Elizabeth, to carry on trade with Russia; the Eastland Company, chartered in 1579 for the Baltic trade; the Turkey Company in 1581; and the East India Com pany, which, beginning in 1600 as a trading company only, became a great political power in the next century and laid the foundations of the British empire in India. London was the chief commercial port, but Bristol, Plymouth, and many smaller towns now rarely heard of played a large part in the seagoing commerce of the time. Economic expansion brought important changes in the relation of various classes to each other. In the towns, the guild system was breaking down and the distinction between the employer who furnished the capital and the employee who worked for wages was becoming more fixed. The new commercial spirit also affected the country. Through the buying up of confiscated monastery lands and in various other ways, country estates were coming into the hands of more aggressive and businesslike, but often unscrupulous landlords, recruited in part from the merchant class. Even when the ownership of these estates remained in the hands ECONOMIC CHANGES 5 of an old family, the actual management was put into the hands of a new type of leasehold farmers who were naturally determined to make the business pay. These changes affected seriously the status of the agricultural population. Under Landlord the old manorial organization, the relation between land- m tenaut- lord and tenant had been determined more by custom than by formal contract. Serfdom had practically disappeared and the tenant held his land chiefly on condition of certain customary payments; so long as these conditions were met, his rights in the soil were nearly as secure as those of the landlord himself. Furthermore there were on every manor considerable tracts of land, pasture and woodland for in stance, in which all the tenants had common rights. To the new landlord, these customary arrangements often seemed to interfere with efficient and profitable management of the estate. So, as the expanding woolen industry in creased the demand for raw wool, he began to inclose com mon lands for his exclusive use and sometimes to convert arable land into pasture. Sometimes also the old customary tenure was converted into leases which gave the landlord a better opportunity to drive hard bargains with his tenants and evict them when they failed to meet his terms. The result was a temporary lessening of the demand for agri cultural labor, the depopulation of many communities, and the development of a large vagrant class. So the statesmen of the Tudor period were troubled by the problems of pau perism and the crime that naturally follows. Thus in the economic changes of the sixteenth century, as Inequalities. in many others before and since, the advantages of progress were unequally shared. While the commercial middle class was gaining in wealth, others were growing poorer; and, as prices rose, men of moderate means, as well as the very poor, were troubled by the increasing cost of living. In conditions like these contemporary writers found some of their chief arguments for colony planting. 6 THE EUROPEAN INHERITANCE King and The Englishmen of 1606 lived under a monarchy and Parliament. few of them thought any other form of government possible or desirable. At the head of the system stood the King, who came to his throne by right of hereditary descent and had the loyal support of nearly all his subjects. Nearly every one, too, was willing to allow the King and his Council a freedom in the exercise of royal power quite impossible at the present day. Nevertheless, intelligent Englishmen gen erally believed that the King's power was not unlimited, that new taxes should not be laid nor important changes made in the law without the consent of Parliament. This Parhament was not, however, representative of all classes but chiefly of those described as "gentlemen." The House of Lords included the greater nobility and the bishops of the national church. The country members of the House of Commons were chosen by the freeholders, who included beside the gentry the more independent of the farmer class. In the boroughs, the merchants had some representation, but the number of voters was generally small. Constitu- Throughout the seventeenth century, Englishmen dis- issu . agj.ee(j sharply as t0 the exact boundary between the King's prerogative and the authority of Parliament. Under the Tudor kings, the royal power was greatly increased, partly because such rulers as Henry VIII and Elizabeth were strong and, on the whole, popular leaders of the nation. The com mon man profited in many ways from a strong central government which could preserve order and restrain the violence and injustice of the landowning aristocracy. The commercial classes also profited by the growth of royal authority which was used in many ways to promote their interests. During the latter part of Elizabeth's reign, how ever, the so-called "country party," including both country gentlemen and members of the mercantile class, began to insist more strongly on the rights of the House of Commons. James I and his son Charles I met these rising demands with POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS 7 the theory of " divine right," asserting that the King received his crown independently of the national will and had certain "prerogative" rights which were above the law and could not be controlled by Parliament. These controversies, increasing in violence, combined with religious issues to bring on the great Civil War and the execution of Charles I. Finally the Revolution of 1688 established the sovereignty of Parliament as the foundation principle of English con stitutional law. An important part of the work of government was done Courts of by the national courts of justice, all of which, from the ]us justices of the peace in the various counties to the great courts of the King's Bench and Common Pleas, were com posed of judges appointed by the King and removable by him at his pleasure. Gradually during the Middle Ages the King's judges, going out into the country on their "cir cuits," had built up, on the foundation of ancient customs, the great fabric of national law, displacing in large part the special jurisdictions of the feudal lords and the church. In these national courts, criminal cases were tried and jus- The "com- tice administered in civil suits according to certain well- on w' recognized principles of the "common law," including the right of the defendant to a jury trial and the right of every individual not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Though these principles were generally acknowledged, there were still great differences of opinion about their application. Englishmen were not always free from arbitrary arrest and imprisonment by order of the King; the King's influence over the judges was often so great as to prevent impartial justice; and there was much complaint about the irregular proceedings of the Star Cham ber and other special courts which developed out of the King's Council. As a matter of fact, however, these irregu lar methods were sometimes used to protect the common man against his more powerful neighbor. 8 THE EUROPEAN INHERITANCE Local government, Under the close supervision of the King's Council, a large share of the public business was done through the local governments, of which the most important were the county, the parish, and, for the urban areas, the boroughs. The county. The most influential officers of the county government were the justices of the peace. These were appointed by" the King and could be removed by him; but as a matter of fact they were usually the leading gentlemen of the county in wealth, social standing, and influence. Sitting together as a court of "quarter sessions" they not only tried judicial cases but also did much that is now done by American county boards, including the levy of county taxes. One important authority exercised by the justices was that of fixing wages; in this, as in other matters, they naturally kept in view the interests of their, own landowning class. The chief executive officer of the county government for ordinary purposes was the sheriff, who, like the justices, was usually a man of some wealth and social standing. A more imposing personage was the lord lieutenant, a leading nobleman of the county, who commanded its military forces. The landowners of the county had an essential part in the system: they served as jurymen in the courts and they could also vote for the knights of the shire who represented them in the House of Commons. For the country population the parish was important. This was originally an agency for church government, and its principal officers, the churchwardens and vestrymen, were elected in the parish meeting to take charge, with the clergyman, of the spiritual as well as the civil interests of the community. The ordinary police duties of the parish were performed by the constable, who was sometimes chosen by the parishioners, sometimes by the justices, and some times by the lord of the manor in which the village was included. Just before the colonial era began, the parish was given another task, that of caring for the poor within its The parish. THE GOVERNING CLASSES ' 9 limits. For all these purposes money was needed, and the parish rate, or tax, was collected from the inhabitants. An important factor in the life of almost every parish was the principal landowner, or lord of the manor, from whom the inhabitants held their land by various forms of tenure. The judicial authority of the manorial lord was gradually disappearing, but he was commonly a justice of the peace and his personal influence in the social and political life of the people was very great. The people of the urban areas and even of some small The country towns were organized in boroughs; these were oroug!l- based on royal charters, some of which went back to the early Middle Ages. There was no uniform system. Mayors and aldermen were chosen in different ways, sometimes by the taxpayers, sometimes by a restricted class of so-called "freemen"; in many places the governing group was a "close corporation," filling vacancies in its own membership. In general the borough governments were controlled by a comparatively small number of persons. Thus whether we look at national government by King Aristoaacy. and Parliament, or local government by justices of the peace and borough corporations, the English people lived under a political system which was sharply aristocratic. Generally speaking, it was the business of noblemen, other gentlemen, and to a certain extent of the richer middle class, to govern the country; it was the business of others to be ruled. Even a revolutionary leader like Oliver Cromwell believed that the distinction between "gentle" and "simple," between the "gentleman" and the common man, was desir able and should be preserved. It was, in fact, carried over to the New World by the colonists of New England and Virginia alike. Distinct as were the social classes, the barri- Class bar- ers between them were not impassable. The sons of yeomen impassable. and merchants might, and often did, as the result of then- own achievements or those of their fathers, become gentle- IO THE EUROPEAN INHERITANCE men; on the other hand, the younger sons of the landed gentry sometimes became city merchants. In this respect, as in many others, Enghsh society was freer than that of France, Spain, or Germany. It must never be forgotten, either, that England was then the only important Euro pean nation with an efficient system of national repre sentation. The An essential part of Enghsh life was the national church. church. In the Middle Ages, England had been united with the rest of western and central Europe in the great Catholic Church of which the Roman Pope was the visible head. Partly under the influence of the Protestant Reformation on the European continent, partly from personal and political motives on the part of the Tudor sovereigns and their minis ters, and partly as the result of a nationalistic movement against foreign control, England had lately broken away from the Church of Rome and reorganized its ecclesiastical constitution on national lines. In theory at least, every man born in England inherited the duty of loyalty to the church as he did that of loyalty to King and Parliament. Church and state were now more closely united than ever before. The King was the "governor" of the church, under God; as such he appointed the bishops and other principal church officers. Parliament also had its share in the gov ernment of the church; for theological tests and forms of worship, though framed by the clergy, were formally em bodied in statute law. The freedom of the church was thus restricted, but these limitations were offset by some impor tant privileges. The bishops sat in the House of Lords, and, in addition to the tithes charged upon the land, there were parish rates which all subjects were obliged to pay. No other rehgious body had any legal standing. Those who professed other forms of rehgion were subjected to various legal disadvantages or penalties, and all men were required to attend the services of the established church. CHURCH AND STATE II Nearly everyone agreed that there should be a state The church, that it was the business of the state to support and ^^j"1 defend the true kind of Christianity. Englishmen differed Episcopal widely, however, as to what true Christianity was and how EOvernmen " the church ought to be governed. Generally speaking, the policy of the government and of those who controlled the church after the separation from Rome was to keep as far as possible the old usages. The church was to be governed as before by bishops and archbishops; there was to be as little change as possible in doctrine; and the forms of serv ice, though now spoken in English instead of in Latin, were taken with some changes and additions from the service books of the medieval church. There were, however, two classes of Englishmen who Roman were not satisfied with these arrangements. Many conserva- CathouC3- tive people still opposed the separation from Rome and regarded the Pope as the supreme head of the church. They looked back with affection to the imposing ceremonial of the old days and regretted the changes which had been made in ritual and in doctrine. At the opposite extreme were the radical Protestants, or Puritans, who had been much Puritans. influenced by Calvin and other leaders of the Reformation on the Continent. To them the Roman Church seemed utterly corrupt and they believed that the Church of Eng land ought to be made a thoroughly Protestant institu tion. Not all Puritans held the same opinions, but in general they stood for what they considered a simpler and more Biblical form of religion with fewer forms and cere monies and more emphasis on preaching. Though still for the most part laymen or clergymen in the established church, they were usually not in sympathy with the ex isting episcopal system of government and wished either to reduce the power of the bishops or to abolish it altogether, substituting a representative system like that advocated by Calvin and the Presbyterians of Scotland. 12 THE EUROPEAN INHERITANCE Conformityenforced by the state. Puritans and Separatists. Englishcivilizationin 1606. In organizing the Church of England efforts were made to conciliate both these opposing parties and find a middle way in which aU could walk together; but in the end every one was expected to conform to the established system. When James I came to the throne there was some hope that he might show more sympathy with the Puritans; but these expectations were disappointed, and a severely repres sive policy was adopted. Toward the Catholics, James was personally more conciliatory, partly because he wished to cultivate friendly relations with Spain, then the leading Catholic power. The discovery of a Catholic conspiracy, however, and the intense popular feeling against the Roman Church led to more or less fitful persecution of its members during the early years of American colonization. Though nearly all Englishmen believed in an established church, including most of the Puritans, who wished to transform the church or even to be let alone in it rather than to withdraw altogether, there were small Puritan congrega tions here and there which felt quite differently. They were soon divided into various sects, but in general, they believed that the Church of England was so thoroughly corrupt that all truly Biblical Christians must separate from it. Instead of wishing to establish a national state church, they believed that each local congregation of true believers should be self-governing, choosing its own ministers and other officers. In 1606 this party was too small to exert much influence, but every measure which made it more difficult for Puritans to remain in the church without giving up their convictions increased the number and influence of the "Separatist" element. The civilization of England at this period was in some respects lower and in some respects, perhaps, higher than that of the present time. In contrivances for controlling natural forces and increasing physical comfort, even the wealthiest classes were not able to command what is easily Longitude West 0 Longitude Facing 13 CIVILIZATION AND CULTURE 1 3 within the reach of the ordinary man to-day. Indeed, the seventeenth century was in this respect worse off than the later Roman Empire. Government was less careful then than now to protect the life and property of the citizen against arbitrary treatment. Distinctions of rank also interfered seriously with the progress of the humbler classes. The idea that the state was bound to provide free education Education. for all the children of the community would have seemed quite strange in that day, and the church was much more important in this field. Education was the privilege of a comparatively small group. Nevertheless, it is easy to overemphasize these deficien cies. The great universities of Oxford and Cambridge, with their rich endowments built up by the gifts of liberal men and women through many generations, were on the whole well adapted to the training of churchmen, scholars, and statesmen. Endowments for schools were common during the Middle Ages, and interest was stimulated by the scholars of the Renaissance period. In the early years of the seventeenth century many parishes had schools of their own, supported by endowments or public contributions or by a combina tion of these methods, and the somewhat meager records at hand indicate a rapid decrease in the rate of illiteracy. Among the ruling classes there was, perhaps, a keener intel- intellectual lectual life than at the present time. The great awakening e" which began with the Italian Renaissance reached its height in England at the close of the sixteenth century; the names of Bacon in science and Shakespeare in literature are hard to match in any time. The fact that Shakespeare was the most popular dramatist of his age suggests that the average playgoer may have stood on at least as high a level of taste and intelligence as his present-day successor. During the Tudor period the international position of intematicnal England had been greatly strengthened. After the demoral- re atIons' izing and weakening Wars of the Roses, the resources and 14 THE EUROPEAN INHERITANCE Spain and England. Anglo-Spanish rivalry in the New World. power of the kingdom had been gradually built up by the Tudor sovereigns, three of whom — Henry VII, Henry VIII, and Elizabeth — were rulers of exceptional ability. Under Henry VIII, England began again to take a promi nent part in European politics, though not always success fully, for she had powerful rivals. Of all these rivals the most powerful was the Spanish monarchy, which was consoli dated under Ferdinand and Isabella in the last quarter of the fifteenth century and gradually acquired a series of dependencies in central Europe, including the Netherlands. Through the discoveries and conquests of Columbus and his successors, the gold and silver of the New World were brought into the Spanish treasury, and the Spanish army and navy became the most powerful in Europe. During a large part of the sixteenth century the relations of England and Spain were friendly. Henry VIII's first queen was the Spanish princess, Catherine of Aragon. Their daughter, Queen Mary, was the wife of Philip II of Spain, who after her death proposed to marry her successor, Elizabeth. The proposal was rejected; but for many years after wards the English government kept on tolerable terms with Spain, partly to protect itself against a possible com bination of the French with Elizabeth's rival, Mary, Queen of Scots. Gradually, however, the two countries drifted into war. One factor in this change was the rising feeling of Protestant England against the Catholic Spaniards who were more or less involved in the conspiracies against Queen Elizabeth. When the Dutch Protestants rebelled against the attempts of Philip II to enforce the Catholic system upon them, the Enghsh government, which has always been keenly interested in the Netherlands, intervened in favor of the Dutch, at first secretly and then more openly. Most im portant of all was the refusal of English seamen to acknowl edge the Spanish monopoly of colonization and trade in INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS; 15 the New World. Daring adventurers like John Hawkins and Francis Drake persisted in carrying on this forbidden trade and, when attacked by the Spaniards, began a sort of private war in which Spanish-American ports were plun dered and Spanish treasure ships captured on the high seas. Though professing disapproval of these exploits, the Queen often connived at them and shared in the profits, until finally the pretense of peaceful relations had to be aban doned. In 1588, after years of preparation, Philip II sent The his "Invincible Armada" against England; but the great Armada.6 seamen who were so largely responsible for bringing on the war also brought about the decisive defeat of the Armada. England's supremacy on the seas was not yet estabhshed, but its foundations were laid at this time. The war lingered on during the last years of Elizabeth's reign; but when James I came to the throne, a treaty of peace was made and the King afterwards tried to arrange an alliance through the marriage of his son with a Spanish princess. This mar riage project failed, however, and the attitude of the average Englishman toward Spain became one of habitual antagonism and distrust. Meantime as a result of the temporary union of Spain with Portugal, the Portuguese possessions in Asia were also involved and Anglo-Spanish rivalry was extended to the Far East. During this period, France was a much less serious rival France and than Spain. While Ferdinand and Isabella were consoli- n^aQ dating the Spanish kingdom, a similar work was being done in France by the great Louis XI and his successors; but French progress toward unity was seriously checked by the so-called "religious wars," which, though originating in the conflict between Protestants and Catholics, were complicated by economic factors and by the desire of the nobles to recover something of their old independence. The Enghsh people sympathized with the Huguenots, or French Protestants, as they had with the Dutch; and from time to time Elizabeth 16 THE EUROPEAN INHERITANCE supported them in a half-hearted way. By the end of her reign the Huguenot leader, Henry of Navarre, had become King of France (Henry IV), though at the price of chang ing his religion. Protestantism was to be tolerated, but the Catholic Church was recognized as the official church of France. Under Henry IV, France again began to go forward; but when he was assassinated in 1610, there was another period of disorder and weakness. At last, however, there came to the front in 1624, the great cardinal-statesman, Richelieu, who raised the power of the King and the central government to a higher point than ever before, thus enabling France to supersede Spain as the strongest nation in Europe. Italy and Across central Europe from south to north lay two coun- Germany. trie^ Italy and GermanV; which, though taking the lead in the great intellectual movements of the Renaissance and exerting an important influence on the art and literature of other countries, were crippled politically by internal divisions. Italy had long been broken up into a number of petty states, almost constantly at odds with each other, and it was fre quently the battleground of foreign armies. In Germany a reform party tried to secure a unified national government like those of England, Spain, and France; but the move ment failed, partly because of the mutual jealousies of the various principalities, and partly because at a critical time the Germans were further divided by the Protestant Reforma tion into two great religious parties. In 1618, two years be fore the Pilgrim colonists sailed for America, this religious antagonism, complicated by sordid interests of various kinds, Thirty flamed up in the terrible Thirty Years' War, which completed Il G3.TS ^rt/3.1* the demoralization of Germany. In medieval times, the German cities had played a great part in international trade; but they were now seriously handicapped in competition with other nations whose governments were better able to protect and advance the interests of their subjects. Thus hopelessly divided, neither Italy nor Germany was able to INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 1 7 win territory in the New World. The unhappy condition of Germany contributed in a more positive way to American colonial history, since it led a large number of Germans during the next hundred years to become colonists under the British crown. On the shores of the Baltic England had trade relations The Baltic of some importance with Russia and the Scandinavian coun- coun nes' tries, upon which she depended especially for "naval stores," including lumber, pitch, and tar. Important as these ar ticles were to the English navy and merchant marine, the trade was liable to disturbance by unfriendly regulations and the chances of war. Englishmen were therefore deeply interested in finding other sources of supply, as they presently did in the New World. The Scandinavian countries were now Protestant; both Denmark and Sweden took an active part in favor of the Protestant party in the Thirty Years' War. Besides their common sympathy with Protestantism, England and Denmark were at this time somewhat drawn together by the marriage of James I with a Danish princess. The most serious trade competitors of the English were Holland. the Dutch. During the latter part of the sixteenth century, they secured not only independence of Spain but also impor tant conquests in the Far East at the expense of Spain and Portugal, then temporarily united under Philip II. In their navy, their mercantile marine, and their business methods, the Dutch took the lead among the European peoples. Among their citizens in the seventeenth century were some of the leading scholars of Europe, including Hugo Grotius, sometimes called the father of international law; the Dutch school of painters, with such men as Hals and Rembrandt, was famous all over Europe. Politically the Dutch provinces were organized in a loose federal re public dominated by the wealthy merchants; but they generally chose as their military head a prince of the House of Orange. In religion the Dutch were for the most part i8 THE EUROPEAN INHERITANCE Influence of the Dutch. Chief rivals of England. Mowers of Calvin and radical Protestants; though under the leadership of such men as William the Silent they allowed more religious liberty than any other European country. The relations of England with Holland were particularly close. During the period of Spanish rule, Dutch Protes tants found refuge in England and helped to develop the manufactures of their adopted country. The sending of English troops to the Netherlands during the Dutch war for independence furnished military training to a number of officers who afterwards used their experience in the New World. Englishmen studied the business methods of the Dutch, and their portraits were painted by Dutch artists. In matters of rehgion, the English Puritans were much influenced by their neighbors; and when troubled by per secution many of them found refuge in the hospitable Dutch cities. Though the English and the Dutch were drawn together as Protestants by a common hostility to the Catholic power of Spain, their commercial interests tended to drive them apart. During the seventeenth century they were competitors for trade not only in Europe but in Asia, Africa, and America. Though nominally at peace with each other during the greater part of this century, and sometimes political allies, they now and then came to blows. Gradually the Enghsh gained on the Dutch, until by the end of the century the latter were left far behind in the race for com mercial supremacy. When the Englishmen of 1606 faced the great contest for the possession of North America, the Spaniards seemed their most formidable rivals. Then as the century ad vanced, Dutch competition was for a time the most serious. Gradually, however, Spain and Holland declined in relative importance, while France became not only the leading European power, but the chief competitor of England in the contest for world supremacy. ENGLAND AND HER CHIEF RIVALS 19 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES (For general plan and abbreviation of titles most frequently used, see page ix) Cheyney, E. P., European Background of American History, European especially chs. VTI-XVI. Hayes, C. J. H., Political and Social background. World History of Europe, I. Abbott, W. C, Expansion of Europe, I, politics. chs. xn-xvi. Cross, A. L., History of England and Greater Britain, chs. English XXVT-XXXV, especially chs. XXVI ("EUzabethan England") backsround- and XXXV ("Puritan and CavaUer England"). Cambridge Modern History, II, ch. XVI; and III, chs. LX, X. Creighton, M., Age of Elizabeth, with Gardiner, S. R., Puritan Revolution. Seeley, J. R., Growth of British Policy, I, pts. I, II. Details of poUtical history in volumes by Pollard and Montague in Hunt, W., and Poole, R., Political History of England. Channing, United States, I, 143-150. Cunningham, W., Economic Growth of English Industry and Commerce in Modem Times, I. mstoly' Ashley, W. J., English Economic History, II, chs. III-V. Cheyney, E. P., History of England {1388-1603), I, pt. III. Usher, A. P., Introduction to the Industrial History of England, especially chs. iv, vm. Cheyney, England, I, pt. I. Maitland, F. W., Constitutional Government History of England, Period H, 226-236 (Law) and Period III. kw, {Cambridge Modem History, III, ch. XXII, "PoUtical Thought," ideals. by Figgis). Channing, United States, I, 421-426 (Local govern ment.) Adams, G. B., Constitutional History of England, chs. X, ff. Jusserand, J. J., Literary History of the English People, II, English bk. V, ch. I. Trevelyan, G. M., England under the Stuarts, chs. sodety' I-III. Onions, C. T., editor, Shakespeare's England. Train, Social England, III, ch. XII; and IV, ch. XIII. Harrison, W., Description of England in Holinshed's Chronicles; Contempo- partly reprinted in New Shakespeare Society Publications, series fJJ-jL,^ VT, and in Withington, L., Elizabethan England {Camelot Series); extracts in Hart, Contemporaries, I, 145-152. Smith, Sir T., De Repubiica Anglorum (edited by L. Alston), valuable account of the Tudor government. CHAPTER n THE ENGLISH OUTLOOK ON AMERICA Spain and the New World. Portuguese enterprise. The "Papal Meridian." Keeping the Old World background always in mind, we must now try to see the New World, not as we now know it, but as it appeared to a well-informed seventeenth-century Englishman. More than a hundred years had passed since in 1493 Christopher Columbus came back from his heroic journey across the mysterious ocean to announce that he had found a new route around the world to the lands and people of the Far East. The later voyages of Columbus and his successors gradually made it clear that he had found not a new route to the Far East, but a new world. By a strange fate, this New World soon received not the name of its greatest pioneer, but that of one of his lesser contemporaries, Americus Vespucius, a Florentine navigator who explored much of the coast of South America, the first part of the New World that was recognized as a previously unknown continent. Columbus, like Americus Vespucius and so many other great explorers of his time, was an Italian; but his voyages had been made under the auspices of the Spanish government, which at once set up its claim to sovereignty in the Western Hemisphere. The voyages of Columbus to "the Indies" aroused the jealousy of the Portuguese, whose daring seamen had made their way down the western coast of Africa and around the Cape of Good Hope to the Indian Ocean, and the -Pope was called upon to decide the dispute. This resulted in the "papal line of demarcation," first fixed in 1493 one hundred leagues west of SPANISH ACHIEVEMENTS 21 the Cape Verde Islands but changed in 1494 at the request of Portugal so as to run two hundred and seventy leagues farther westward. The new line was found to cut across the western part of South America, and so Brazil be came Portuguese rather than Spanish. The effect of the Pope's decision was to put the whole Western Hemi sphere, excepting Brazil, within Spain's "sphere of influ ence." At that time all the nations of western and central Europe were loyal to the Pope, and the Spaniards thus gained a substantial advantage in the occupation of America. Excepting the Portuguese settlement in Brazil, the Spaniards had the only permanent colonies in America for more than a hundred years. During those hundred years the Spaniards achieved Spanish some remarkable results. They began with the explora- ments; tion and colonization of the islands in the Caribbean Sea — exploration. Cuba, Haiti, Porto Rico, Jamaica, and some of the lesser islands. Then came settlements on and near the Isthmus of Panama, from which the daring adventurer, Balboa, caught in 1513 his first glimpse of the Pacific Ocean. Still searching, like Columbus, for the rich islands of eastern Asia, Magellan, a Portuguese sailor in the employ of Spain, sailed in 1519 down the coast of South America, through the Strait of Magellan, and out into the Pacific. Though Ma gellan himself was killed in the Philippines, one of his ships completed the first journey around the globe in 1522; and it was realized as never before that America was a new world. During the sixteenth century, the Spaniards ex plored not only the coasts of South and Central America, but pushed up the Pacific coast of North America as far as Oregon. On the Atlantic side, they explored the northern shore of the Gulf of Mexico, rounded the peninsula of Florida, and sailed up the North Atlantic coast as far as Nova Scotia. Nor were the Spaniards explorers only. From the coloni- Spanish zation of the West Indies, they passed on to the occupation °° 0Iuza 0l! 22 THE ENGLISH OUTLOOK ON AMERICA of the mainland. The conquests of Cortes in Mexico and Pizarro in Peru were both accomplished within fifty years after the first voyage of Columbus in 1492. These conquests enriched the adventurous conquerors and their followers, and made possible the great treasure fleets which in the days of Philip II crossed the ocean with gold and silver for the service Spanish of the Spanish crown. In 1 574, there were in the New World America. about twQ nundre(i Spanish towns with a European popu lation of more than a hundred and fifty thousand, ruling over perhaps five millions of civilized or partly civilized Indians, a large proportion of whom were practically serfs. Partly as a remedy for the evils of Indian slavery, negro slaves were imported from Africa in large numbers, espe cially for the West Indian Islands. Much has been said about the Spaniard's greed for gold and his cruelty to the Indians; but in the former respect, Frenchmen and English men, though less successful in their search, were not far behind the Spaniard. In their treatment of the Indians, the Spanish conquerors, from Columbus down, were often cruel and treacherous; but in their efforts to give the na tives some kind of Christian civilization, they were more persistent and successful than the French or the English. Unlike the English colonists, before whom the Indians gradually disappeared, the Spaniards established commu nities in which Europeans and Indians have for three and a half centuries been able to live in tolerable relations. Spain's Fortunately for their English rivals, the Spaniards were efforts in , . , . , ,..,., - _, , North so much occupied with exploiting the rich resources of Central enca- and South America, that their colonization scarcely touched that part of North America which is now the United States. Nevertheless, some attempts were made both in the East and in the West. In 1521 the picturesque adventurer, Ponce de Leon, lost his Hfe in an unsuccessful effort to found a colony in Florida, and in 1526 the Spaniards came near preempting the territory afterwards occupied by Virginia SPAIN IN NORTH AMERICA 23 and North Carolina. In that year Ayllon, a Spanish officer from Santo Domingo, planted a colony called San Miguel on the Carolina coast. Ayllon died, however, and his colony was abandoned. During the next fifteen years, two striking attempts were made to match in North America the brilliant achievements of Cortes in Mexico. One such attempt was made by Nar- vaez, an unsuccessful rival of Cortes; in 1527 he set out Narvaez. with a royal grant covering the northern coast of the Gulf. His purpose was conquest, but he carried with him a con siderable number of colonists, including some women. The attempt at colonization failed completely. Narvaez with a section of his company made his way painfully along the coast, partly by land and partly by sea, toward Mexico. He finally perished somewhere on the coast of Texas and only a handful of his men were able to reach Mexico. A few years later (1 539-1 542) De Soto, who had distinguished De Soto- himself with Pizarro in Peru and had later been made governor of Cuba, repeated the unlucky enterprise of Nar vaez with similar results. For three years he wandered about in the Gulf region. He saw "the great river," Mis- Discovery sissippi, now for the first time definitely described, crossed Mississippi it somewhere near the site of Memphis, Tennessee, and then Elver" marched across the plains of Arkansas. Worn out by con stant Indian warfare and hardships of every kind, the high- spirited leader perished and was buried by his followers in the Mississippi. The survivors went down the river and then by sea to Mexico. The expeditions of Narvaez 'and De Soto make a stirring chapter of American adven ture, and they did something to extend geographical knowl edge; but they are of slight importance in the founding of the American nation. Notwithstanding their lack of success in North America, the Spaniards maintained their claim to it and regarded all others as trespassers. This attitude is best illustrated by 24 THE ENGLISH OUTLOOK ON AMERICA Florida. Spanish exploration in the Southwest. New Mexico and Texas. France in NorthAmerica- Bretonfishermen. their treatment of a French Huguenot colony, begun in 1564 on the St. Johns River in northern Florida. It was attacked in IS65 by a Spanish force under Menendez and entirely destroyed. As a means of holding the country, Menendez built the fort of St. Augustine, out of which presently de veloped the feeble colony of Florida. In the southwest, the Spaniards fared somewhat better. Through the courage, energy, and constructive ability of Cortes, the Aztecs were conquered between 1519 and 1521, and Mexico became a Spanish province. From this vantage point, explorers, soldiers, and missionaries pushed out in various directions. One survivor of Narvaez's unlucky expedition made his way to Mexico and on the strength of stories told him by the Indians, gave his countrymen exaggerated ideas of rich northern cities. The Franciscan, Friar Marcos, who was sent by the viceroy to investigate, brought back a report which made a similar impression. So in 1540 a great expedition was sent out under Coronado which spent about two years exploring Arizona, New Mexico, and the great plains beyond as far as the present state of Kansas. Coronado's expedition was less tragic than that of De Soto, but its immediate results were not great. The serious colonization of New Mexico began about sixty years later; still later enterprises, especially those of Catholic missionaries, carried a measure of Spanish civilization be yond the Rio Grande into Texas. Two centuries passed, however, before those western outposts had any vital signifi cance for English-speaking people. Meantime, other European powers had not been entirely frightened off by the papal bull. Almost continuously during the sixteenth century, European fishermen of various nationalities, including Frenchmen from Brittany and Nor mandy, made voyages across the Atlantic to the fishing grounds off the coast of Newfoundland. In 1524 an Italian named Verrazano explored a considerable part of the Atlantic FRENCH PIONEERS 25 seaboard of the United States, probably under the authority of the French government, and French names began to appear on the maps of North America. King Francis I of France was a jealous rival of the Emperor Charles V, who was also King of Spain; he was therefore not unwilling to poach upon the latter's preserves. In 1534, he sent out Jacques Cartier, of the same province of Brittany from Carrier. which so many seamen had gone out to the Newfoundland fisheries. Cartier entered the Gulf of St. Lawrence in 1534 The French and in a second expedition of 1535 he followed the St. stXawrence. Lawrence River to the Lachine Rapids just above the present city of Montreal. In 1 541-1542, the French made a serious attempt to plant a colony on the St. Lawrence, with a noble man named Roberval as viceroy and Cartier as commander of the fleet. The two leaders failed to act harmoniously, and the colony was soon abandoned. After the death of Francis I, the religious dissensions in Carolina and France grew more serious and some of the Protestant leaders, Acadia- including Coligny, conceived the idea of a French colony in America, partly as a patriotic enterprise and partly as a refuge for Protestants. After an unlucky venture in Brazil, two attempts were made on the North American coast. The first in 1562, at Port Royal in what is now South Carolina, was almost immediately abandoned; the destruc tion of the post on the St. Johns by the Spaniards has already been mentioned. In 1606 the French hold on North America was of the slightest sort. Besides the fishermen who went back and forth from France to Newfoundland, there was one struggling little colony which had been planted in 1604 on St. Croix Island near the present boundary between Canada and the United States, but was soon transferred to Port Royal in Acadia, now Nova Scotia. The obstacles to English occupation so far set up on the England's Atlantic seaboard of North America were evidently few oppor uni y' and weak. Over the whole continent Spain had posted a 26 THE ENGLISH OUTLOOK ON AMERICA The Cabot voyages. Bristol merchants. Englishinterest in America. warning against intruders and her European power still made her a formidable rival; but between the equally feeble colonies of Spain in Florida and the French in Acadia the continent was still open. In the meantime English men, though backward, had already shown in various ways their appreciation of the opportunities which the New World, offered. Before his first voyage to America, Columbus had made some overtures to King Henry VII of England which came to nothing; but shortly after the discoveries of Columbus became known, Henry took an important step which be came the foundation of England's claim to sovereignty in North America. In 1496, a Venetian navigator, John Cabot, applied to the King for authority to make discoveries in the eastern, western, and northern seas, partly at least in the hope of finding the Spice Islands of the Far East. Henry VH gave him the desired patent and in 1497 Cabot crossed the Atlantic, making land somewhere north of New England — just where has never been finally decided. The next year he made a second voyage, from which he probably never re turned. These expeditions were followed by trading and colonizing charters to Bristol merchants, who seem to have gone on voyages to Newfoundland during the early years of the sixteenth century. No important results followed from these enterprises at the time, but for the next two cen-. turies and a half the Cabot discoveries were made the start-] ing point of almost every argument for English dominion in North America. For many years afterwards, English interest in America was kept alive chiefly by the fishermen who frequented the coast of Newfoundland. Gradually, however, other inter ests began to develop. One of the chronicles collected by the geographer Hakluyt tells of visits made to Brazil in the reign of Henry VIII by William Hawkins of Plymouth, "one of the principal! sea Captaines in the West partes of ELIZABETHAN SEAMEN 2^ England in his time," who was "not contented with the short voyages commonly then made only to the knowen coastes of Europe." He brought with him on a return voyage an Indian chief who made a great impression on the King and all the nobility. Shortly before Elizabeth's accession to the throne, there appeared the first books printed in England on the American discoveries, and during the early years of her reign there was a great stirring of interest in American affairs. One important factor in bringing about this result was Elizabethan the slave trade, and the most striking figure in the early seamen- development of that trade was Captain John Hawkins. Like other conspicuous seamen of that day, Hawkins was Hawkins. an ardent Enghsh patriot and Protestant, as well as a daring fighter. Though England and Spain were nominally at peace, he regarded the Catholic Spaniards in the New World as fair prey; and while genuinely religious, his con science was not troubled by the traffic in human beings. The character of his enterprises may be illustrated by his own story of certain voyages made in 1567 and 1568. By various means he gathered on the Guinea coast of Africa a cargo of four or five hundred slaves with which he sailed to the Spanish colonies in the West Indies and on the southern shores of the Gulf of Mexico. It was the policy of Spain to keep the trade with her colonies strictly to herself, and orders to this effect had been given to the colonial officials. Nevertheless, many Spanish colonists were glad of a chance to buy from the English; and so in many places, Hawkins had "reasonable trade and courteous entertainment." Elsewhere he was less fortunate and the opportunity for trade had to be fought for. At last, at Vera Cruz, Mexico, he was attacked by a Spanish fleet and barely escaped after the loss of his famous ship, the Jesus. An associate of Hawkins in this voyage was Francis Francis Drake, the most famous of the Elizabethan sea dogs. Like (28) Section op the "Wkight-Hakltts't" Map (an Enh op the Nohth-Atlantic World in the Year 1600) (29) 30 THE ENGLISH OUTLOOK ON AMERICA Hawkins, Drake was a Plymouth man, brought up in an atmosphere of aggressive English Protestantism. After the fight at Vera Cruz, Drake took the lead in the irregular warfare between Englishmen and Spaniards in America. His voyages were in part business undertakings to enrich himself and his men; but he also thought of them as battles in a legitimate warfare against the enemies of Protestant England. In 1572 he led a daring, almost reckless, raid on the Spanish settlement of Nombre de Dios on the Isthmus of Panama. In 1577 he began his famous voyage around the world by following the eastern coast of South America to the Strait of Magellan. Then, after breaking up a mutiny Drake's by the execution of its chief leaders, he went on, like Magel- the war with Ian, into the Pacific. During the last months of 1578, he Spain- sailed up the Pacific coast, plundering Spanish towns and treasure ships on a magnificent scale. He had now stirred up too many hornets' nests to retrace his route in safety and so, after advancing northward along the California coast, he turned westward across the Pacific and through the Spice Islands to the Indian Ocean, returning to England in November, 1580, three years after his departure from Plymouth. Six years later, he captured the town of Santo Domingo in the West Indies, sacked the rich and powerful city of Cartagena on the Spanish Main, and temporarily broke up the Spanish settlement of St. Augustine. In these enterprises skill and reckless courage had been so wonder fully combined that the Spaniards quite naturally came to think of Drake as a magician in league with the devil. Natu rally enough also, Elizabeth, with all her evasions, was not able to cool the rising anger of Philip II. The exploits of Hawkins and Drake had their logical result in the Spanish Armada of 1588, and its defeat meant the breakdown of Spanish monopoly in the New World. It was through the voyages of these great seamen that Englishmen generally first became interested in America. RICHARD HAKLUYT 3 1 In the spirit of Drake and Hawkins, they thought of America as one of the great sources of Spanish power and the region where that power could most effectually be attacked. An important influence in spreading these ideas and keeping EngUshmen informed about American affairs was Richard Hakluyt, the Hakluyt, a clergyman of the Anglican Church but best ee°6raPher- remembered as the leading geographer of Elizabethan England. From his boyhood up, he was an enthusiastic student of geography, and in 1582, two years after Drake's voyage around the world, he published a volume contain ing accounts of voyages to America. In 1589, the year after the defeat of the Armada, he published his great work, The Principall Navigations, Voiages, and Discoveries of the English Nation, which was issued in an enlarged edition in 1598-1600, and has ever since been a great storehouse of information on the achievements of the Elizabethan seamen and the beginnings of English expansion. Some copies of the later edition included the map here partly reproduced (pages 28, 29). In 1584, he wrote A Discourse on Western Motives of Planting, in which he argued that the establishment of colonization. English posts between Florida and Cape Breton would make it easier to attack Philip's fleets and menace his American power. "If you touche him in the Indies, you touch the apple of his eye; for take away his treasure, which is nervus belli, and which he hath almoste oute of his West Indies, his international olde bandes of soldiers will soone be dissolved, his purposes nva ry' defeated, his power and strengthe diminished, his pride abated, and his tyranie utterly suppressed." Other motives, however, were at work to interest Enghsh- America and men in colonization. America was valued not only for itself but as a stage in the journey toward India and the Spice Islands of the farther East. This was the hope of Columbus, Cabot, and Magellan in the first period of American discovery; it was also prominent in the minds of English and French explorers in the seventeenth century. 32 THE ENGLISH OUTLOOK ON AMERICA The search for gold and silver. Theories of com merce and colonization. The width of North America was not yet appreciated and there was constant searching for a passage through. At different times the St. Lawrence River, the Hudson, and Chesapeake Bay awakened hopes of a waterway to the Pacific, by means of which Englishmen might share in the rich trade of the East, which was dominated in succession by the Portuguese and the Dutch. Gradually, however, the American and East Indian enterprises were separated from each other and America was sought more largely for itself. The success of the Spaniards in finding gold and silver also made a great impression on Englishmen. Their seamen had enriched themselves by seizing the products of the Spanish mines, but they hoped also for mines of their own. The first American charters commonly assumed that gold and silver were likely to be found, and a fixed propor tion, usually one fifth, was reserved to the King. Early colonial promoters were also quite insistent that mines should be found, but the actual yield was small. The emphasis laid upon gold and silver was in accordance with the general economic theories of the time, which measured the wealth of a nation largely by its store of precious metals. It was desirable to own mines for this purpose; but if mines were not available, gold and silver might also be secured from the producing countries by a proper regu lation of trade. If England could sell its own products to foreigners in return for gold and silver and could then get on with a comparatively small importation of goods from abroad, the national treasure might be largely increased. In the opinion of seventeenth-century thinkers, England was much too dependent upon other European nations for essential articles of trade. Her spices, for instance, came to her largely through foreign middlemen — at first the Portu guese and later the Dutch. There were important Enghsh fisheries, but much of the English supply was bought from foreign fishermen. Lumber, pitch, tar, and other naval MOTIVES FOR COLONIZATION stores were essential to the navy and merchant ^rrarme, but they were then secured largely from the Baltic count For all these things, English money had to be paid out to for eign rivals. If, however, colonies, or perhaps better, trading Desire for posts, were founded in America this drain of the precious j^uung*11 metals might be stopped. Fish might then be caught more P°sts- largely by Enghsh fishermen; naval stores might be bought from English colonists; and, instead of buying tropical prod ucts from continental rivals, England might even have a surplus for export. It was expected that England's export trade would be Export trade developed in other ways. At first it was thought that the ^^pp^s- Indians were comparatively civilized people who would demand, for instance, large amounts of European textiles for their clothing; but this was soon seen to be a delusion. Later, as Englishmen settled in the New World, it was hoped that their prosperity would enable them to buy largely from the mother country, especially English manufactures. Im portant indirect advantages were also expected. The At lantic fisheries should prove a training school for the hardy sailors upon whom depended the sea power of the nation, while export and import trade with the colonies would em ploy profitably an increasing amount of merchant shipping. A common idea in the writings of that time was that of Colonies as colonization as a safety valve for undesirable population. yajY^ty The unemployed were to find employment; the unfortunate and criminal classes, who were burdensome and even danger ous at home, were to take a fresh start in the New World. Probably few of these "submerged" people took the initiative in leaving home for America; they were more commonly sent by others as kidnaped children, indentured servants, and transported criminals. Contemporary statements often emphasize the missionary The. motive. It was frequently mentioned in the charters and motive. Ad- though the results of English missionary activity were pain- venture. 34 THE ENGLISH OUTLOOK ON AMERICA Political and religious motives. Pioneer enterprises. Sir Humphrey Gilbert. fully slight, as compared with those accomplished by the Spaniards, there was after all some genuine feeling back of these plans; in every colony there were some men who did not forget their duty to the Indian. Naturally enough, however, the colonists failed to understand the natives, and in the pressure of self-interest and self-protection the missionary motive too often fell into the background. Simple love of adventure also played a large part, especially in the early stages of colonization. In most of these arguments for colonization, the point of view is that of the national interest. In the main, they are not so much appeals to colonists as to colonizers. In 1606, few Englishmen looked upon America as a place where they themselves should personally engage in building up new commonwealths, where they could realize political and religious ideals not within reach at home. When, for instance, it was first suggested that Cathohcs might find a refuge from persecution in America, the proposal fell to the ground. Gradually, however, rehgious and political controversies created a discontented class which found its greatest oppor tunity in the Puritan colonies of New England. With all the active interest in American affairs, not a single English colony was really estabhshed before the close of Elizabeth's reign. There had been, however, a few of those pioneer enterprises which, even in their failure, point the way to later and more successful ventures. The promoters of these enterprises were among the leaders in the national life — distinguished seamen, soldiers, and politicians. They were interested, of course, in their own personal profit, but they were also genuinely anxious to advance the welfare and prestige of the nation. Among these men, two stand out conspicuously, Sir Humphrey Gil bert and Sir Walter Raleigh. Gilbert was a west-country gentleman, educated at Oxford, and an experienced soldier who had fought the GILBERT AND RALEIGH 35 Spaniards in the Netherlands. Before his American ven tures began, he had also been interested in the planting of Protestant colonies in Ireland. In his thinking about America the desire to find a northern passage to Asia played a prominent part, and with this in view, as well as the fisheries, he took a special interest in Newfoundland. At last in 1578 he received a patent from the Queen giving him the right to establish colonies in America and govern them, subject to the royal authority. After one unsuccess ful voyage, Gilbert secured the cooperation of an associa tion of merchants who took stock in the enterprise and were to share in the profits. He also worked out elaborate plans for the government of his proposed colony. After all these preparations, Gilbert set sail in 1583 for New foundland and landed his settlers; but the colony soon broke up, and on his return voyage he was lost at sea. On Gilbert's death his enterprises were taken up by his sir Walter half brother, Sir Walter Raleigh. Raleigh's personality, Rai^ii- still more than that of Gilbert, brings the American move ment into relation with the main currents of English national life. He was one of the most brilliant figures at the court of Queen Elizabeth and throughout his career a vigorous champion of the anti-Spanish party. In 1584 he also secured a patent for American colonization, and after sending an exploring expedition which landed on the coast of North Carolina he took up the work of actual settlement, sending out in 1585 a fleet with nearly two hundred prospective colonists. The commander of the fleet was Sir Richard Grenville, sir Richard a daring sea-fighter whose heroic death six years later on the Revenge, in battle with the Spaniards against heavy odds, is one of the most stirring episodes in English naval history. Nearly three hundred years afterwards, Tennyson in his spirited ballad of The Revenge retold the story of the man who 36 THE ENGLISH OUTLOOK ON AMERICA "had holden the power and glory of Spain so cheap That he dared her with one Httle ship and his Enghsh few." TheRoanoke colony. Increasingknowledgeof North America. This first Raleigh colony, having landed on Roanoke Island, spent there the autumn of 1585 and the winter and spring of 1586. Discouraged by the failure of their search for treasure, the hostility of the Indians, and the scarcity of food, the colonists returned to England in July, 1586, with one of Drake's returning fleets. They had hardly left Roanoke Island, when Grenville came back with supplies and new recruits who remained on the island after his departure. Undismayed by the first failure, Raleigh sent out a second expedition in 1587 which, after calling at Roa noke Island for the colonists there, was intended to settle in Chesapeake Bay. Before they arrived at the island, Grenville's settlers had disappeared, but in spite of Raleigh's directions the new colonists were kept at Roanoke. John White, the governor of this colony, soon returned to England, which he found on the eve of invasion by the Spanish Ar mada. In the strain and excitement of the next three years, the Roanoke colony, though not wholly forgotten by Ra leigh, was left to its own devices, and in 1591, when White returned there, he found no trace of it. This was Raleigh's last important enterprise in North America. Under King James I he was condemned for alleged treason, imprisoned in the Tower of London for thirteen years, and finally ex ecuted. Though he had himself no part in the final settle ment of Virginia, some of his associates kept alive the move ment which had been so largely stimulated by him and carried it into effect before he died. Besides the more striking undertakings of the Elizabethan period, there were several other voyages during the early seventeenth century which made the North American coast more familiar to Englishmen and especially directed atten tion to the northern section, which, as well as the southern, THE NEW OUTLOOK 37 had ever since Raleigh's expeditions been included in the general name of Virginia, adopted in honor of the Queen. So in the century that followed the Cabot voyages, knowl edge of America and its opportunities had, at first slowly and at the last more rapidly, increased among Englishmen. In spite of strange and inaccurate notions as to the "hinter land" of North America, the maps of the period show a roughly correct view of the coastline. Men still hoped for an easy passage through the continent, but the old notion of America as a mere appendage to Asia had passed away. Gradually also the Indians were changing in the popular mind from the rich and civilized people expected by Colum bus to the half-naked savages which they really were. The Public value of colonies in the New World had been widely dis- Sionlation. cussed, and, though many of the advantages expected were never realized, yet the idea of colonization had taken hold of some of the real leaders of the nation, who were especially stirred by the thought of successful competition with their Spanish rivals. Gradually, too, the merchant class and some of the nobility were being persuaded to invest their capital in American enterprises. In 1603, Elizabeth was succeeded by James VI of Scot- Half a land, now become James I of England, and three years later colonial the new King granted the famous Virginia charter which re- enterPnse- suited in the planting of the first permanent Enghsh colony in America. The next fifty years of American colonization make up a period of extraordinary activity and substantial achievement in the history of the English-speaking people. The most familiar and the most important result of that half century was the planting of those colonies which were to prove the nucleus of the independent republic of the United States. Under the Virginia charter of 1606, two settlements were attempted. One of them, on the coast of Maine, failed utterly and was abandoned. The other, on the shores of Chesapeake Bay at Jamestown, seemed for a 38 THE ENGLISH OUTLOOK ON AMERICA Typical pro moters of colonization. Sir Thomas Smith. time almost equally hopeless but finally survived to become the colony or "Dominion" and later the state of Virginia. In the territory carved out of Virginia by the royal charter of 1632, Lord Baltimore planted his proprietary province of Maryland. North of Maryland, English enterprise was checked for a time by Dutch and Swedish settlements in the Hudson and Delaware valleys; but beyond the Hudson a great emigration of Enghsh Puritans made possible a group of self-governing New England colonies. For Ameri cans, at least, these are the outstanding events of those fifty years; but they do not tell us the whole story of Eng lish achievement during that period; nor can they be rightly understood unless we set them against the background of other events which then appeared no less important. The promoters of English overseas expansion represented many phases of the national life. Some were high officials like Sir John Popham, Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench. No less influential were the merchants whose capital was required to finance these activities. A conspicuous figure in this group was Sir Thomas Smith, a kind of Pier- pont Morgan in his day and generation, who was at one time or another the chief executive officer of three great corporations: the East India Company, which laid the founda tions of the British Indian Empire; the Muscovy Company, trading to Russia; and finally the Virginia Company. Another conspicuous merchant of that day was Sir William Courten, founder of the Barbados colony, whose enterprises ranged from the West Indies to the Far East. Gentry and nobility, too, of all degrees were deeply interested in America. An especially attractive figure among them was Sir Edwin Sandys, son of a famous Archbishop of York, a leader of the "country party" in the House of Commons, and for a time the most influential member of the Virginia Company. In sharp contrast to Sandys in many ways was Sir Ferdinando Gorges, governor of the port of Plymouth, PROMOTERS OF COLONIZATION 39 a soldier in the Continental wars, a lifelong promoter of trade and colonization especially in New England, a sturdy loyalist and antagonist of the Puritans on both sides of the Atlantic. There were also noblemen of higher rank: Sir George Calvert, first Lord Baltimore, Secretary of State under James I, an early member of the Virginia Company, and founder of Maryland; Robert Rich, Earl of Warwick, another leader in the Virginia Company and promoter of numerous other colonizing ventures, who became one of the great Puritan peers and on the outbreak of the English Civil War was created by the Long Parliament governor in chief of the colonies in America; the Earl of Carlisle, who in 1627 became proprietor of the Windward and Leeward Islands in the Caribbean Sea. The business methods were not always the same. Some- Methods of times, peers, gentry, and citizens united in a corporation colonies™8 to secure grants of land with rights of government, as in the Virginia charter of 1609 and the New England patent of 1620. Sometimes an individual nobleman persuaded the King to make him lord proprietor of a group of islands or a tract of land on the continent, as, for example, Lord Baltimore in Maryland and Sir Ferdinando Gorges in Maine. Except in New England, however, and at first even there, a colony was primarily the enterprise of promoters who remained in England, establishing for their own profit trading posts and settlements beyond the sea. Usually, also, the King was content to leave the government, as well as the title to the land, with the promoting corporation or proprietor. Before studying in detail the permanent colonies on the Island continent, it is worth while to take a rapid survey of what was accomplished elsewhere in this half century after the founding of Virginia. One of the most important results for England, and for the continental settlements as well, was the establishment of English colonies in the neighboring islands. This was, of course, poaching on the Spanish 4° THE ENGLISH OUTLOOK ON AMERICA The English West Indies. Guiana. preserves; but fortunately for the other nations there were many unoccupied islands and these were gradually taken up by French, Dutch, Danish, and English adventurers. The Bermudas were for a time attached to Virginia; but they were soon granted to a new company, under which they prospered until they came to support a population of about three thousand people. Between the Bermudas and the West Indies proper were the Bahamas; but these were not seriously occupied during this period. The two principal centers of English colonization in the West Indies before 1655 were St. Christopher, from which other small islands of the Leeward group were gradually settled, and Barbados. In 1627, when Charles I made the Earl of Carlisle Lord Proprietor of the Caribbean Islands, settlements had already been made on St. Christopher and Barbados. There were some conflicting claims; but these were disposed of by 1629 and, except for a brief period after the overthrow of the monarchy in England, the proprietor retained his rights until 1661, when the islands were brought under royal government. Beginning with tobacco as their chief product, the English West Indies gradually devoted themselves more and more to the production of sugar by means of slave labor. Much English capital was invested in these islands, and most English officials considered them at least as important as the continental colonies. By the middle of the century Barbados had a population, including negroes, larger than that of Virginia. The relation of these sugar colonies to those of the continent was extremely important. From the continent came the food supplies on which the islands were largely dependent and for which they paid by the sale of their sugar. They also kept up a brisk trade with some of their foreign neighbors, particularly with the Dutch. On the mainland south of Barbados was Guiana, where Raleigh made his last venture. While he was a CARIBBEAN ENTERPRISES 41 prisoner in the Tower, attempts were made to establish settlements in this region; and in 1613 James I granted a patent for "all that part of Guiana or continent of America" between the Amazon and Essequibo to Robert Harcourt, who published "Notes" for the use of emi grants. In 1627 another Guiana patent was granted by Charles I to his favorite the Duke of Buckingham and certain associates, and two hundred colonists were sent over. This enterprise was soon abandoned; but some Eng hsh settlements were subsequently made in Surinam, now Dutch Guiana. After 1650, this colony developed sufficiently to have a representative assembly, and in 1663 it was granted as a proprietary province to Lord Willoughby and Lawrence Hyde, the latter a son of the great Earl of Clarendon. On the coast of Honduras, also, the Enghsh had interests of Puritan some importance. In 1630 a Puritan company in which the in the Earl of Warwick and the parliamentary leader John Pym Caribbean- were prominent members founded a short-lived colony on the island of Providence, just off the Mosquito Coast. In North America, too, there were some unsuccessful Unsuccessful ventures which are worth remembering. In 1629, long be- North fore the final settlement of the Carolinas, a patent covering much the same territory was granted to Sir Robert Heath. Heath, who was then Attorney-General and shortly after wards became Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, had been a councillor of the Virginia Company and a mem ber of the Council for New England; but this plan came to nothing. In New England, the only substantial achieve ments were those of self-governing Puritan- colonies; but there were active efforts to establish colonies of a very dif ferent sort. An energetic promoter in this region was Sir Ferdinando Gorges, who had magnificent plans for a great principality of which he should be the head. He was obhged, however, to content himself with the compara tively modest proprietorship of Maine, and before long was America. 42 THE ENGLISH OUTLOOK ON AMERICA Nova Scotia and New foundland. Englishpolitics and Americancolonization. crowded out even there by the aggressive Puritans of Massachusetts. Even farther to the northward British enterprise was at work. In spite of the French colony in Acadia, the Scotch poet and politician, Sir William Alexander, Earl of Stirling, secured from King James a patent for Nova Scotia, which included much more than the territory now known by that name. Like Gorges, he took his work seriously and sent out colonists; but before he died in 1640 his province was aban doned to the French, and a real English province of Nova Scotia was not established until the beginning of the next century. Newfoundland, too, where thousands of English men had engaged in fishing, seemed to offer an attractive field for the colonial promoter. Here Sir George Calvert, several years before the granting of his Maryland charter, tried to establish the province of Avalon; but he found the climate discouraging and gave it up. Thus the first half century after the landing of the colonists at Jamestown was one of great and varied activity in colonial affairs. The air was full of American projects which interested many of the same men who were promi nent in other great concerns of their country. In the po Utical dissensions of the Stuart period and finally in the Civil War, many of them took sides, either like Gorges for the King or like Pym and the Earl of Warwick for the Par liament. These conflicts had important consequences for the American colonies. Many abortive projects would doubtless have failed in any case for other reasons; but some might have succeeded if their loyalist promoters had not been checked by the temporary defeat of their party in the Civil War. In some cases the failure of these at tempts by distant speculators to transplant Old World institutions cleared the way for genuine colonization. During these stormy years thousands of real colonists, who in or dinary times could hardly have been tempted away from SELF-GOVERNMENT 43 home, were led to cross the ocean. Some hoped to realize religious and political ideals for which there seemed to be Httle chance in England; others, like certain settlers of Barbados described by Clarendon, asked " only to be quiet." Through the embarrassment of Enghsh promoters and the Develop- growing number of substantial, self-reliant colonists, the ™kmiaf self- center of gravity in colonial management was gradually government. shifted towards the American side of the Atlantic. This tendency was still further emphasized by the uncertain state of the sovereign government in England, which, alter nately royal and republican, was for twenty years so much occupied with home problems that it could not develop a consistent American policy. Thus colonization came to be less and less an affair of merchants and noblemen in Eng land and more and more the business of real settlers. It is only by keeping in mind this background of projects, successful and unsuccessful, ranging all the way from New foundland at the north to Barbados and Guiana at the south, that one can hope to see in fair perspective the more familiar record of English colonization on Chesapeake Bay and the New England coast. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES Andrews, C. M., Colonial Period, ch. I. Becker, C, Begin- General nings of the American People, chs. I, II. Bolton, H. E., and VJCTr" Marshall, T. M., Colonization of North America, 1-86, 104-111, 129-134. Channing, United States, I, chs. I-V. Interesting sug gestions in Semple, E. C, American History and Its Geographic Conditions, ch. I, and Eggleston, Beginners of a Nation, bk. I, ch. I. Bourne, E. G., Spain in America, chs. XIII, XLX, XX. Spanish Fiske, J., Discovery of America. achievements. Munro, W. B., Crusaders of New France, chs. I, III. Park- French pioneers. man, F., Pioneers of France. Winsor, J., Cartier to Frontenac, chs. I-IV. 44 THE ENGLISH OUTLOOK ON AMERICA Elizabethan Readablesources. Colonial policy. WestIndies. Fiske, J., Old Virginia and Her Neighbors, I, ch. I. Corbett, J., Sir Francis Drake (short biography by the author of Drake and the Tudor Navy, the standard work). Laughton, J. K., articles on Sir John Hawkins, Drake, and Raleigh in the English Diction ary of National Biography. Wood, W., Elizabethan Seadogs. Burrage, H. S., Early English and French Voyages. Payne, E. J., Voyages of the Elizabethan Seamen, First and Second Series. Brief extracts in Hart, A. B., Contemporaries, I, nos. 28-32. Hakluyt's Principall Navigations . . . of the English Nation has been reprinted by the Hakluyt Society (1903-1905); abridged edition in Everyman's Library. Beer, G. L., Origins of British Colonial Policy, chs. I-III. Osgood, H. L., American Colonies, I, pt. I, ch. I. Lucas, C. P., Historical Geography of the British Colonies, II. Newton, A. P., Colonizing Activities of the English Puritans. PHYSICAL MAP OF THE EASTERN PART OF UNITED STATES SCALE OF MILES 2(11) "So ELEVATIONS IN FEET ~Z\ Over 5000 2000 to 5000 ^J 1000 to 2000 100 to 1000 I I Sea level to 100 Boundary of.the United States' in 1789 Present State boundaries CHAPTER m THE VIRGINIA PIONEERS The first permanent English colony in America had its The vir- starting point in the royal charter granted by James I on Iff^!"1** April 10, 1606. The grantees were described in general as "knights, gentlemen, merchants, and other adventurers"; and they belonged to two principal groups, one having its center in London, and the other in the west-country port of Plymouth. Of the Londoners named in the charter, one was the geographical expert, Richard Hakluyt; the other three were soldiers who had fought the Spaniards and thus continued the tradition of Drake and Raleigh. The Plymouth group included Raleigh Gilbert, son of Sir Humphrey Gil bert and nephew of Sir Walter Raleigh; also a nephew of Chief- Justice Popham, who was probably the most important official supporter of the movement. According to this charter Virginia included all of North international America between the thirty-fourth and forty-fifth parallels j?™,? ca" of latitude, that is, roughly, between Nova Scotia and the southern line of North Carolina. In claiming this vast area, James ignored not only the French claims to the north but also those of the Spaniards, with whom he had only two years before signed a treaty of friendship. Spanish jealousy was at once aroused, the progress of the colony closely watched, and every effort made to secure its abandonment by the English government. In most matters James was anxious to please the Spaniards; but on this point he stub bornly refused to yield. For the exploitation of this territory there were organ- 45 46 THE VIRGINIA PIONEERS London and Plymouth companies. Colonial ad ministration. Rights of the colonists. ized two "colonies" or companies: the London Company was called the first colony, and the Plymouth Company, the second colony. The London Company was entitled to make a settlement anywhere between the thirty-fourth and forty-first parallels. After having made its first settlement it was entitled to all the land along the coast for fifty miles north and fifty miles south of the point so occupied, with an extent of one hundred miles into the interior. The Plym outh Company was given similar rights in northern Virginia, from the thirty-eighth to the forty-fifth parallels. There was therefore a zone of three degrees, extending roughly from the mouth of the Potomac to the mouth of the Hudson, which was open at the beginning to members of both com panies; to prevent conflict, however, it was provided that when one company had established its colony, the other should not settle within a hundred miles of it. The government of Virginia was to be under the close control of the Crown; the affairs of each colony were to be regulated by royal orders, under the general supervision of a council appointed by the King. This superior council appointed two subordinate councils, one to reside in each colony and manage its local affairs. The colonists them selves were given no political rights; but the settlers and their children should have the same "liberties, franchises, and immunities" "as if they had been abiding and born within this our realm of England." On the basis of this clause and of similar provisions in other charters, the American colonials in after years declared their right to share in those fundamental personal and property rights which were em bodied in the Enghsh common law. This principle was afterwards reaffirmed by the legal advisers of the English government, one of whom declared in words that have often been quoted: "Let an Englishman go where he will, he carries as much of law and liberty with him as the nature of things will bear." THE TRANSATLANTIC VOYAGE 47 In 1607 both companies landed their first colonists in America, the London Company on Chesapeake Bay and the Plymouth Company at the mouth of the Kennebec River in Maine. The latter colony lived for only a few months; but the London Company, though at first almost equally unlucky, began what finally turned out to be a perma nent American commonwealth. By December, 1606, three Expedition ships had been provided and 120 colonists were ready for l6°6' the journey across the Atlantic. The instructions prepared for the colonists show that the promoters expected the es tablishment of a single fortified post near the coast as a basis for exploring and trading expeditions. The colonists were to cultivate the soil, to search for a passage through to the Pacific, to look for gold mines, and to develop trade with the Indians. The list of councilors was kept sealed until the end of the voyage; but the commander of the fleet was Christopher Newport, a thoroughly experienced seaman, who had commanded one pf Raleigh's ships in the war with Spain. In these days of transatlantic steamers, ocean cables, Trans; and wireless despatches, it is hard to realize what an ocean travel. voyage meant three hundred years ago. For one thing, it was still painfully long; Newport's fleet sailed from London December 20, 1606, and entered Chesapeake Bay April 26, 1607, more than four months later. This voyage was de layed by storms and the fleet took a roundabout route, stopping at several of the West Indies; but even twenty years later, Winthrop, sailing directly from England to Mas sachusetts, took more than two months. These long voyages were taken in vessels which would now be regarded as small even for pleasure yachts. Newport's three vessels had a tonnage of one hundred, forty, and twenty respectively, in striking contrast with modern ocean liners whose tonnage is counted in thousands of tons. With passengers crowded together for months in badly ventilated quarters, supplied 48 THE VIRGINIA PIONEERS The Chesapeakecountry. The tidewater region. with food which, without modern refrigerating processes, naturally grew worse as the voyage went on, and without water that was fit to drink, disease spread rapidly and the death rate was heavy; sixteen of the one hundred and twenty who sailed with Newport died on the voyage. When, to all these trials, there are added the chances of shipwreck in stormy weather and on unfamiliar coasts, the trans atlantic voyage of 1606 may fairly be called an extra hazardous undertaking, requiring strong bodies and stout hearts. The physical characteristics of the region in which the American repubhc had its starting point had a lasting influ ence not only on the settlements there but on the whole course of American history. Fortunately there was among the first colonists an unusually keen observer in the person of Captain John Smith, whose Description of Virginia enables us in some measure to see the country as it appeared three hundred years ago. Chesapeake Bay at its entrance, between Cape Henry on the south and Cape Charles on the north, is about fifteen miles wide. From this entrance the tidal waters of the bay extend almost due northward for nearly two hundred miles, with a maximum width of about forty miles. Between the bay and the ocean stretches a narrow strip of low, sandy coast; but this "Eastern Shore" has not a single important ocean harbor. Much more im portant was the "Western Shore," opened up by a series of great rivers. Facing the entrance of the bay is the mouth of the James, on whose banks the first settlements were made; then in order to the northward come the York, the Rappahannock, the Potomac, the Patuxent, and at the head of the bay, the Susquehanna. Up these rivers the tide penetrates for considerable distances, and they are navigable still farther up for small vessels, the James for about a hundred miles and the Rappahannock and Potomac still farther. Each of these rivers has numerous tributaries, THE CHESAPEAKE COUNTRY 49 so that the whole plain is intersected by waterways available for small craft. During the seventeenth century the colonization of Vir ginia and Maryland was confined mainly to the low-lying region of the tidewater. From the beginning, however, traders and explorers made their way to the falls of the The back rivers among the low hills of the piedmont district. Still country- farther westward, in a region of which the first colonists had only a vague knowledge based upon the stories of the Indians, were the Blue Ridge and the Allegheny Plateau, with the "Great Valley of Virginia" lying between them; the settlement of this region had to wait for another century. As to climate, Smith's statement seems pretty near the Climate and truth: "The temperature of this countrie doth agree well resources- with English constitutions being once seasoned to the coun trie." Nevertheless, the early colonists suffered severely during the "seasoning" period from malarial diseases. Nearly the whole tidewater country was covered with forest; the clearing of it for cultivation was difficult, but it furnished convenient building material. Game and fish were abundant and the soil was fertile. Wheat was unimportant until settlements advanced into the back country; but corn and tobacco were planted by the Indians and the colonists soon followed their example. The number of Indian inhabitants cannot be definitely Indian in stated; Smith thought there were some 5000 within sixty a ltants' miles of Jamestown. Most of the Indians of this neighbor hood, and indeed of the whole North Atlantic coast, belonged to the Algonquian family; but at the head of the bay were the Susquehannocks, who belonged to the same stock as the northern confederacy of the Iroquois. Most of the Indians of the southern Chesapeake region were united in a kind of confederacy under the leadership of the chief Political Powhatan, a name also applied to his tribe and to the So^orthe confederacy. The primitive political organization of the Indians. 5° THE VIRGINIA PIONEERS Indiancustoms. Agriculture. Algonquian Indians was based largely on kinship. Families were grouped into clans and clans into tribes whose chiefs were usually chosen on the principle of hereditary succes sion in the female line; thus the successor of Powhatan was one of his brothers by the same mother. Sometimes, as in the case of the Chesapeake Indians, tribes were loosely united in a confederacy. The strong ties of kinship which bound the Indians had important practical effects on their relations with the whites and made it harder for the two races to understand each other. As with other primitive peoples, the murder of a clansman by a member of some other clan was charged not merely against the individual who committed the crime, but against the clan or tribe to which he belonged. So the act of a single unscrupulous white man seemed to the Indian to justify retaliation against any of his associates. The rela tions of the white men with the Indians were also compli cated by different ideas about property. Individual owner ship hardly existed except in the most intimate personal articles, such as the warrior's weapons, which were com monly buried with him. The vague ideas held by the In dians regarding the ownership of land were the source of serious misunderstandings between them and the whites who claimed to have bought large tracts in exchange for more or less valuable goods. Though in dress and other habits the Indians were dis tinctly savages, they had developed out of the purely no madic stage and lived in more or less permanent villages, with clearings for the cultivation of tobacco, Indian corn, and vegetables. Thus the early white settlers were able to use the experience of the Indians and sometimes de pended on them for food. In the hundred years of ex ploration that followed the discovery of America, the natives had had some trying experiences with white men, and the Virginia pioneers found them hostile or suspicious. On the THE JAMESTOWN COLONY 5 1 day that the fleet first entered Chesapeake Bay a landing party was attacked by a party of "savages creeping upon all foure, from the Hills like Beares, with their Bowes in their mouthes." In the early history of Virginia, there were fre- Indian wars. quent periods of open or secret warfare which interfered seriously with the progress of the colony. In locating their first establishment, the colonists had the benefit of careful advice from the company. They were to locate it on a navigable river, far enough up to avoid attack from the sea and yet with sufficient depth of water for vessels of fifty tons. Accordingly, they selected the spot The on the northern bank of the James River, half island and J^emmt1 half peninsula, where Jamestown was established. Un fortunately, however, they chose low ground close to a marsh and covered with timber, which served as a cover for hostile Indians. Here they presently built a palisaded fort, placing within it a storehouse and a chapel. At this remote outpost of civilization there were gathered in the summer of 1607 about one hundred men and boys, no women having been included among the first colonists; and during the next two years about 180 additional settlers were brought. More than a third of the pioneers were "gentlemen," but there were also some artisans and agricultural laborers. The spiritual and physical health of the colonists was cared for by a clergyman of the Church of England and a doctor of physic. When the names of the first councilors were made pubhc Government it turned out that seven of the ships' company, including £oiony- Captain Newport, had been chosen and thus given almost absolute authority over the rest. From their own number the councilors selected a president, but he could be deposed by his associates and had little independent authority. The first president was deposed within a few months after his election and his successor was similarly disposed of not long afterwards. Two other councilors were arrested at various 52 THE VIRGINIA PIONEERS CaptainJohn Smith. Apparentfailure. Sir Thomas Smith. times and one of them condemned to death for mutiny. Amid these mutual jealousies and bickerings, Captain John Smith stands out as more nearly qualified for leadership than any of the others. He was a man of marvelous adven tures in the Old World and the New, and they certainly lost no picturesqueness in the telling. Having confidence in his own virtues and a low opinion of his associates, he was constantly quarreling and was twice arrested. Neverthe less his efficiency was finally recognized by his election as president of the council and for a short time he carried on a vigorously despotic government. Whether as a business investment or as the nucleus of a new community, the colony was for the first two years an almost absolute failure. It was kept alive partly by sup plies from England and partly with corn bought from the Indians; but these resources were insufficient. Living in an unhealthful situation, constantly in fear of attack from the Indians, and half starved, the settlers succumbed in appalling numbers; out of nearly three hundred settlers sent to Virginia under the first charter only about sixty re mained alive in May, 1610. Some had returned to England, but the great majority were dead. To the company in Eng land the results bought at this, fearful cost seemed small indeed. The James River and Chesapeake Bay had been explored, but there was no passage to the western sea; no gold mines had been discovered; and though some Vir ginia products had been carried back to England, the colony seemed likely to prove a source of expense rather than of profit to its promoters for some time to come. Fortunately there were strong men among the promoters, who were not discouraged and who set themselves to the necessary work of reorganization. One of them was the great merchant, Sir Thomas Smith, who brought to the service of Virginia, not only the expert knowledge of a financier, but also the influence of a conspicuous public Sib Thomas Smith S3 54 THE VIRGINIA PIONEERS Sir Edwin Sandys. The second charter. man. Among the positions held by him were those of alder man and sheriff of the City of London, ambassador to Russia, and governor of the East India Company. In 1603 he was knighted and he afterwards became a member of Parlia ment. All in all he was probably the most distinguished capitalist and promoter of the period. As Smith stands for the rich and energetic London merchants of his day, so Sir Edwin Sandys represents the interest of the gentry in American affairs. He was a son of the Puritan Archbishop of York, an Oxford graduate with some experience abroad, and a writer of some reputation. Like Sir Thomas Smith, he was knighted by James I and had at first the confidence of the King. Later, however, he became a leader of the oppo sition, or "country party," in Parliament and in 1605 one of his books was burned by order of the High Commission. Though Smith and Sandys afterwards drifted apart, they cooperated for many years in the promotion of Virginia interests. Through the efforts of these men and their asso ciates, the King was persuaded to issue, in 1609, a new Vir ginia charter. The new charter created a corporation, corresponding roughly to the London group, or "first colony," of 1606, called the "Treasurer and Company of Adventurers and Planters of the City of London for the first Colony in Vir ginia." This corporation received a definite extent of coast line, two hundred miles north and two hundred miles south of Old Point Comfort, with the interior country "up into the land, throughout from sea to sea, west and northwest." In the government of this territory the company was given a much freer hand than under the first charter; the treasurer and the first councilors were named by the King but their successors were to be chosen by the company. Virginia was thus placed almost completely under the control of a cor poration having its " head office " in London. Nothing what ever was said about any right of the colonists to participate REORGANIZATION 55 in their own government; the company, acting through officers appointed in England, had "full and absolute power and authority to correct, punish, pardon, goVern, and rule" all the King's subjects in Virginia. Three years later a A third third charter of 1612 made more definite provisions for ° CT" quarterly meetings of all the stockholders and strengthened their control of the company's business, but left the status of the colonists unchanged. The treasurer, or chief execu tive, of the company was Sir Thomas Smith and what ever else may be said of him the fact remains that during his ten years' service the permanence of the colony was practically assured. The first problem of the new management was that of National securing capital and in this they were strikingly successful. SH'the' Among the charter members were fifty-six city companies enterPrise- of London, including the Goldsmiths' Company, the Mercers', the Drapers', and the Merchant Tailors'. Besides these corporations, there were 659 individuals, — merchants, peers, knights, and country gentlemen; one hundred or more were, at one time or another, members of Parliament. Public men like the Earl of Salisbury, the chief minister of James I, and Sir Francis Bacon saw in the company an opportunity to advance national power. Business men were looking for profitable trade, and religion was not forgotten. Here was a chance to convert the savages and save the New World for the Anglican, as distinguished from the Spanish, kind of Christianity. Popular interest was also keen; the Spanish Ambassador, Zufiiga, wrote that there was "no poor little man nor woman who is not willing to subscribe something for this enterprise." Then, as now, promoters were not always frank, and their optimistic accounts of life in Virginia resulted in serious disappointment for thousands of emigrants. Another necessary task was that of reorganizing the government in Virginia. Government by a resident council 56 THE VIRGINIA PIONEERS A new governmentin Virginia. Aims and methodsof the company. Thecolony still unsuccessful had apparently failed, and the company decided to choose as governor a man of high standing and give him almost absolute power. The man selected for this post was Lord Delaware, but his actual residence in Virginia was short and the government was carried on in succession by two military men, Sir Thomas Gates, one of the grantees under the first charter, and Sir Thomas Dale, who had lately been fightmg for the Dutch on the Continent; it is a striking illustra tion of the world-wide activities of Englishmen in those days that Dale's last year was spent in the Far East, fighting against the Dutch. Virginia was now governed by a combination of mili tary methods with those of a factory superintendent. It was still primarily an investment proposition for the com pany and a large proportion of the settlers were bound to service for a term of years. Colonists were furnished with supplies by the company and expected to work for the com mon store. The promoters still emphasized the search for gold and silver, and for some passage through the continent to the rich trade of the Indies. The interests of religion were also remembered. Ministers were sent out and one of the first buildings was a chapel in which services were held ac cording to the practice of the Anglican Church. The intoler ance of the time is shown by the exclusion of Cathohcs from the colony. Still the colony did not prosper. Settlers came in large numbers, but the "seasoning" process was still terribly severe. In 1616, for instance, there were only about 350 survivors out of over 1600 who had been sent out. The visit of a few Spaniards in 161 1 caused some anxiety, though they departed without doing any damage, leaving three of their number as prisoners. There was constant complaint also of arbitrary and extortionate conduct on the part of the company's officials. The extravagant hopes of the early promoters faded away and attempts to stimulate the pro- REPRESENTATIVE ASSEMBLY 57 duction of pitch, tar, silk, and wine were almost wholly unsuccessful. During these trying years, however, the Virginians hit Tobacco. upon a product which was to become their chief article of export during the next century. The use of tobacco was common in England when the Virginia Company was chartered, but it was chiefly imported from the Spanish colonies and at first the Virginia product was not popular. By 1616, however, a method of curing was discovered which enabled the colonists to build up their export trade. Another step toward the foundation of a self-reliant community was The colony the abandonment of the communal method of production. taking r00t' Settlement was stimulated by grants of land to individuals and the formation of subsidiary companies which received special privileges on condition of bringing over a certain number of colonists. Meantime, women were coming out and family life was taking root in new American homes. As the colony developed out of a factory or trading station into a community of permanent settlers, the evils of the old arbitrary system were more keenly felt. Fortu nately, there was a strong Hberal element in the company and in 1618 a new governor was sent out with instructions The first which resulted in the first representative legislature ever tfveassembiy held in America. This memorable assembly, which gathered m Amraca' in the little church at Jamestown on July 30, 1619, consisted of the governor and councilors appointed by the company, and "burgesses" chosen by the inhabitants. The speaker was a former member of the House of Commons. The mem bers of this young legislature concerned themselves mainly with very simple and practical matters — how to prevent the one-sided development of the tobacco industry by encouraging the production of corn, wine, and even silk; how to discourage extravagance in dress and how to promote religion and morals, including church attendance and Sun day observance. In this modest fashion, the representative 58 THE VIRGINIA PIONEERS Internaltroubles.Sandys and his opponents. Heavy idea which had hitherto found its highest expression in Eng land was planted in the new soil of America, where it has had a development quite beyond the dreams of its original sponsors. Meantime the Virginia Company was drifting into stormy waters. There were serious conflicts between opposing fac tions and finally Sir Thomas Smith gave up his position as treasurer of the enterprise. His successor, Sir Edwin Sandys, held office for only a year, but he was active in the affairs of the company until the charter was revoked in 1624. Sandys was not merely a radical politician, but a serious student of political philosophy and a sincere believer in popu lar government. In accordance with his views, the repre sentative system in Virginia, which had been authorized while Smith was still treasurer, was presently embodied in a written constitution. Sandys also had plans for better support of the church and for the establishment of a college. None of these things, however, could be done without more revenue, and various projects for this purpose were dis cussed, including a plan to increase the profits of the com pany by giving it a monopoly in the importation of tobacco into England. It was not easy, however, to reach an agree ment with the King, who disliked the political views of Sandys and his friends; they were also embarrassed by the attacks of their opponents in the company. Many of the charges made against them were doubtless false or exag gerated; but the results of the company's administration seemed after all hardly proportionate to the money ex pended and the efforts made. Thousands of settlers had been sent out, but the death rate was still abnormally high; and in 1624 there were only about 1200 people actually living in Virginia. In 1622 there was an Indian outbreak in which over three hundred whites were killed and this also was charged against the company's management. Under these circumstances the company was unable to THE CHARTER ANNULLED 59 defend itself successfully against the increasing hostility of the King and his advisers. The Attorney-General brought The fall suit against the company and in 1624 the charter was an- company. nulled by an order in court. Virginia now became a royal government, and though some of the settlers regretted the change, real progress was probably made when the young colony passed out of the control of a mercantile corporation into direct relations with the Enghsh government. The changes resulting from the forfeiture of the charter Virginia as were less radical than might be supposed. The ultimate province. control of the colony was still in England; but the King, through his ministers, now took the place of the company. The head of the government in the colony was the governor, appointed by the King to serve during the royal pleasure, with powers and duties defined in his commission and instruc tions. Councilors, also appointed by the King, assisted the governor and exercised a certain check upon him; usually The repre- they were chosen from among the principal settlers. At principle. first it was not certain that the representative assembly organized by the company would be continued, but before long it was definitely recognized by the new King. As in England the supreme lawmaking authority was exercised by King, Lords, and Commons, so the Virginia legislature con sisted of governor, councilors, and burgesses. According to the English official theory, this and other colonial legislatures were merely municipal corporations created by the govern ment at home and wholly dependent upon it; but the Ameri can assemblies looked to the Enghsh House of Commons as their model, insisting in particular that taxes should not be levied by the executive without their consent. At first governor, councilors, and burgesses sat together in one house; but before long the two-house system of the English camerai Parliament, now a familiar feature of American state and system- federal governments, was estabhshed, with the governor exercising the right of veto. 6o THE VIRGINIA PIONEERS Governor andassembly. Localgovernment. • The constitutional conflicts of the mother country were reproduced on a small scale in Virginia. Thus Captain John Harvey, appointed governor in 1629, soon quarreled with the assembly, which strenuously defended its exclusive right to levy taxes. The colonists finally expelled Harvey and, though the home government sent him back, a change was soon made. In 1641 the instructions to the new governor, Sir William Berkeley, recognized quite definitely the legis lative power of the assembly. Little attention was paid, however, to that theory of the "separation of powers" which Americans later came to regard as so important. The governor and council not only had executive powers but also took part in the lawmaking process and heard appeals from the provincial courts of justice. The assembly itself was for many years the highest court of appeal. The organization of local government was at first con fused because of special political privileges given to com panies or individuals who were prepared to bring over large numbers of settlers. Gradually, however, the Virginians reproduced the local institutions with which they had been familiar in England. County government was carried on by the justices of the peace assembled in the county courts; they administered justice, levied county taxes, and attended to various other kinds of local business. The Virginia jus tices were appointed by the governor; but, as in England, they were selected from the principal famihes of the county. The orders of the justices were executed by the sheriff and for purposes of military defense there was a county lieutenant corresponding roughly to the lord lieutenant of the Enghsh county. The Enghsh parish was also reproduced, though it often covered a very large area; sometimes, indeed, a whole county constituted a single parish. The parishioners were authorized by law to elect members of the governing body, or vestry, to sit with the parson; but before long, vacancies were quite generally filled by the surviving members, and CHURCH AND STATE 6 1 the vestry thus became a "close corporation." Of these two divisions of local government, the county was much the more important. It was the election district for the choice of burgesses and about its courthouse centered not only the ordinary county business but many other political and social activities. In the church, as in the civil government, Virginians Church and were on the whole content to follow Enghsh practice, regard- state' ing the church and the state as two closely coordinated agencies for upholding morality and good order. While the company was in control, gifts were made to it for rehgious purposes by philanthropic persons in England and clergy men were employed by the company itself. When Virginia became a royal province, the governor was ordered to see that "God Almighty" was "devoutly and duly served," which meant that churches were to be managed and services conducted according to the Anglican form. The assembly also did its part by requiring the settlers in each parish to pay taxes for the support of the clergy. Having provided these rehgious advantages, the Virginia authorities expected the inhabitants to take advantage of them; laws were ac cordingly passed requiring church attendance and the proper observance of Sunday. The strictness of these regu lations is noteworthy, because most of the Virginians were not in sympathy with the aggressive Puritan party in the mother country. Under this civil and ecclesiastical government, Virginia Expansion, ° i 1624-1652. society was evidently taking on a more permanent character. Having passed through the severe tests of the pioneer period, •the survivors formed a well "seasoned" nucleus for future growth. A few of them hved on the eastern shore of Chesa peake Bay, but the majority were settled along the James River from its mouth to a httle below the falls. During the first two decades of royal government, population grew slowly; the new settlers still found it hard to adjust 62 THE VIRGINIA PIONEERS themselves to the climatic conditions, and the death rate con tinued appallingly high. For some years after the massacre of 1622 there were no serious Indian troubles and the frontier was gradually pushed back to the north and west; but in 1644 there was another Indian outbreak, in which many settlers lost their fives. After the opening of the Enghsh Civil War, Virginia grew more rapidly; for the disappointed Cavaliers began to take refuge across the sea, especially after the defeat of the royal forces by the parliamentary armies. By 1652 there were perhaps 20,000 people in the province. Social This pioneer population was drawn from various classes. From the first there had been a fair proportion of the gentry and this element was strengthened by the coming of the Cavaliers; but there were also traders and a considerable number of workingmen. The latter were usually indentured servants, bound to labor for a term of years with the understanding that they should be supported during that time by their masters. Though their service was temporary, their condition in other respects was hardly better than that of slaves, for they could be bought and sold like other property. Some white servants were criminals recruited from English jails, but such immigrants were regarded as undesirable and probably did not constitute a large pro portion of the whole number. Many belonged simply to the class of the unfortunate poor and a surprising propor tion were children, some of whom had been kidnaped. The best white servants were probably the political prisoners, sent over in considerable numbers during the second half of the seventeenth century as a result of the political dis sensions at home. Until the last quarter of the seventeenth century, the Virginia planters depended mainly on white labor; the number of negro slaves, though slowly increas ing, was still comparatively unimportant. Land system. Qne of the decisive factors in the shaping of the "Old THE LAND SYSTEM 63 Dominion" was its system of land tenure. According to the official theory, the title to all land within the territory claimed by the Enghsh was in the King, the Indian having no legal claims which white men and Christians were bound to respect. Actual practice, was often better than the official theory; in many cases the Indians were paid for their land and the colonial assemblies sometimes took measures to protect the natives from unfair treatment. Nevertheless, in strict law, every valid title deed went back to the King. At first the rights of the King as supreme landlord were, in the main, transmitted to the Virginia Company; but after the revocation of the charter in 1624 all land not already granted to individuals or corporations reverted to the Crown. The ordinary method by which this royal domain passed Growth into the hands of private owners during the seventeenth plantations. century was the "head right" system, under which fifty acres of land were granted for each immigrant, the grant being made either to the immigrant himself or to the person who paid for his transportation. Thus a person who acquired one hundred "head rights" became entitled to five thousand acres of land. During the middle years of the seventeenth century the average size of a grant was about five hun dred acres, and Virginia was gradually developing the sys tem of large plantations which became more striking in later years. Every grant of land was subject to certain general conditions. A part of it must be cleared and culti vated within a limited time and some sort of a house built upon it. These requirements were not, however, strictly en forced and many planters acquired title to much more land than they were able to use. This concentration of land in a few hands was naturally discouraging to new settlers and proved an important factor in the westward movement. Every holder of land was further required to pay an annual quitrent to the King. The amount demanded was small Querents. 64 THE VIRGINIA PIONEERS Tobacco and the plantationsystem. Regulationof the tobacco trade. and was commonly paid in tobacco; but it was collected with difficulty and caused much irritation. The development of large estates was facilitated by the physical characteristics of the country, with its great rivers giving easy access to the interior; but it was also due to the fact that its chief product, tobacco, was peculiarly adapted to large-scale production by a servile class of workers. The people of Virginia were not of course exclusively occupied with the raising of tobacco; the normal plantation had also its corn, its five stock, and its orchards. Nevertheless to bacco was the one article which could be profitably exported to Europe in large quantities. Repeated efforts were made to encourage a more diversified industry by the planting of vines, the introduction of silk culture, and the establishment of iron works; but without much success. This one-sided development had serious disadvantages. There were great fluctuations in the price of tobacco; and the problem was still further complicated when new tobacco- growing areas were settled, first in Maryland and then in North Carolina. Attempts were made to secure favorable market conditions by regulating the quantity and quality of the product, but these regulations were always difficult to enforce. Naturally enough the Virginians and those Enghsh merchants who were interested in the Virginia trade desired to secure as complete control of the home market as possible, and in the end the Enghsh government discriminated in favor of their own colonists as against the Spaniards and other producers. The home government was even willing to prohibit tobacco production in England, though some experiments had been made there, the sup pression of which caused considerable feeling. Virginians desired not only to keep the Enghsh market, but also to export their tobacco freely to foreign countries, especially to the Netherlands. On this point, British policy was fairly consistent; the general rule from the beginning was to re- GOVERNOR BERKELEY 65 quire the shipment of colonial tobacco to England, and this was finally required by law in the Navigation Act of 1660. Perhaps the most notable figure among the Virginians sir wuiiam of this period was their governor, Sir William Berkeley. He Berke1^- came of a good Somersetshire family, studied at Oxford, traveled abroad, and tried his hand at playwriting. As a gentleman in waiting at the court of Charles I, his early manhood was spent in an atmosphere of loyalty to church and King. He was made governor of Virginia in 1641, when he was still a young man, and during the next decade he threw himself vigorously into the life of the province. Under his leadership the colony took a strong stand for the Church of England against various forms of rehgious dissent, with the result that many Puritans left Virginia, and took refuge in the new proprietary colony of Mary land. When the Civil War broke out in England, gover nor and people stood together for the King, and held their ground courageously even after the execution of Charles I. Yet the loyalty of the Virginians was not mere The vir- servility. In 1635 they had dared to send home a royal loyalists. governor who offended them, and in the same spirit they asserted their rights agamst the victorious parliamentary party until, as will be seen in the next chapter, they finally yielded to superior force. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES Channing, United States, I, chs. VII, VIII. Eggleston, E., General - 3wfli1nt.fi Beginners of a Nation, bk. I, chs. II, III. Fiske, J., Old Virginia and Her Neighbors, I, chs. II-VII. Johnston, M., Pioneers of the Old South, chs. I-VIII. Tyler, L. G., England in America, chs. III-VI. Wertenbaker, T. J., Virginia under the Stuarts, pp. 1-94. Brown, A., First Republic in America; his Genesis of the United Virginia States is the most comprehensive collection of material on the ComPanv' 66 THE VIRGINIA PIONEERS Economic factors. Institutions. Earlysociety.Sources. founding of Virginia. Kingsbury, S. M., Records of the Virginia Company (introductory essay in vol. I). Beer, G. L., Origins of the British Colonial System, chs. IV- VII. Bruce, P. A., Economic History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century, especially I, chs. I-V, VIII, LX. American Historical Review, XII, 507-528 (Cheyney). Bruce, P. A., Institutional History of Virginia, especially I, pt. I, ch. I; II, pt. V, chs. I-III (Government). Osgood, H. L., American Colonies, I, pt. I, chs. II-IV; III, chs. II, IV. Flippin, P. S., Royal Government in Virginia (very detailed). Bruce, P. A., Social Life of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century, chs. I-III. Charters of the Virginia Company in Brown's Genesis, I; extracts in Macdonald, W., Select Charters, nos. 1-3. Hening, W. W., Statutes of Virginia, I (illustrating social as well as political conditions). L. G. Tyler, Narratives of Early Virginia (most convenient for the general reader). Brief extracts in Hart, Con temporaries, I, nos. 59-67, 82, 83. CHAPTER IV THE CHESAPEAKE COLONIES, 1632 TO 1688 While Virginia was taking shape as a royal province, Proprietary a different experiment was tried across the Potomac. The provmces- overthrow of the Virginia Company did not after all mean a complete change in Enghsh policy. In a long series of colonial charters, Charles I and Charles II gave away to private individuals or corporations the right to govern English subjects in the New World. Of the proprietary provinces thus estabhshed, one of the most important was Maryland, given in 1632 to Cecifius Calvert, second Lord The Mary- Baltimore, who in that year secured by a royal charter cer tain rights already promised to his father. It was this father, George, first Lord Baltimore, who was the real originator of the Maryland colony. George Calvert was an Oxford graduate, a successful George courtier, a member of the court party in Parliament, and first Lord finally in 1619 one of the King's "principal secretaries of state." His chance of a career in politics was closed later by his conversion to Catholicism, for the oath of suprem acy administered to officeholders would have required him to renounce the authority of the Pope; but he found some compensation for this sacrifice in the continued good will of King Charles, who gave him a place in the Irish peerage as Baron Baltimore. Meantime he had shown in various ways his interest in trade and colonization, having been associated with the East India Company, the Virginia Company, and the Council for New England. After an unsuccessful attempt to establish a province of his own in 67 Baltimore. 68 THE CHESAPEAKE COLONIES, 1632-1688 Newfoundland, Lord Baltimore thought of settling in Vir ginia; but the Virginians kept him out by confronting him with that same oath of supremacy which blocked his career at home. In the end, however, his influence at court enabled him to get the better of his Virginia opponents. Before he died, the King had agreed to cut off from Virginia the terri tory north of the Potomac, and convert it into a separate. province which was to be the hereditary possession of the Baltimore family. Boundaries. The new province extended from the Potomac north ward to the fortieth parallel, and from the ocean to the sources of the Potomac. Unlike Virginia, therefore, Maryland had a definite western boundary, a fact of some importance in the later history of the United States. The Virginians were much aggrieved by the loss of this territory, though the forfeiture of their charter in 1624 left them without any legal defense. Later, by a sort of poetic justice, the Balti more family itself was made to realize the uncertainty of royal favors, when the northern part of Maryland (now southern Pennsylvania and Delaware) was given to William Penn. Within this territory, Lord Baltimore became not merely a landowner, but a feudal magnate with extensive political ... powers, explained in general terms as equal to those en- the proprie? joyed by the Enghsh Bishop of Durham in the "county paktinate palatine of Durham." This palatinate of Durham, near the of Durham. Scotch border, was one of those feudal principalities created in medieval times to guard the turbulent and sparsely settled frontiers of the kingdom agamst invaders. In return for this service, the nobleman or churchman who ruled the principality was given extraordinary powers and exempted to a large extent from the control of the central government. As the royal power increased, these jurisdictions tended to disappear; but the Bishop of Durham still kept his palati nate, though with greatly diminished authority. This nearly obsolete institution of medieval England was now MARYLAND 69 given a new lease of life as the government of an American province. Like the palatinate of Durham in its palmiest The pro- days, Maryland and its proprietor occupied a very inde- f^enfin pendent position. In recognition of the King's overlord- Maryland. ship, the proprietor had to make an annual payment of two Indian arrows, with a fifth of all the gold and silver found. The laws of the province also had to be in harmony with those of England so far as possible. In most other respects, Lord Baltimore had a free hand. One medieval feature of the charter was the right of the proprietor to establish in Maryland the decadent manorial system of the mother country. In one important respect, however, this charter was more liberal than those granted to the Virginia Com pany; it recognized definitely the right of the settlers to share in the making of laws. About two years after the Maryland charter was granted, Early Lord Baltimore's first settlers landed on the northern side settlers- of the Potomac. This second Lord Baltimore, who governed the colony at long range from England during the next forty years, seems to have been a hard-headed, practical business man, with a good deal of that tact and diplomatic skill which were sorely needed during these stormy years of Enghsh and American history. Having received from his father a great landed estate, he naturally wished to preserve and improve that estate and make it a source of profit. Like his father he desired, as a good Catholic, to promote the interests of his own church and provide a refuge for persecuted fellow Catholics. A good proportion of the The early settlers and especially of the leading men did actu- element. ally belong to this church; but the number of Catholic emigrants was too small to make possible the development of a strong colony. Most English Catholics preferred to take their chances with the English penal laws, which, though severe on paper were less so in practice, except in times of special excitement. 7o THE CHESAPEAKE COLONIES, 1632-1688 Religioustoleration. Early de velopmentof the colony. Indian relations. Marylandand Vir ginia. WilliamClaiborne. Even if more Cathohcs had come over, it would still have been difficult to make Maryland a strictly Catholic colony; for the King to whom the province owed allegiance was bound by his oath to defend the Church of England, and the charter itself provided that the ecclesiastical laws of England should be enforced. Even under a friendly king, Lord Baltimore had to keep in mind the Puritan party in England, as well as his Virginia neighbors, who were only too ready to find a pretext for attacking the new colony. If, therefore, the province was to be prosperous and safe, it could not pursue an exclusive religious policy but must seek to attract Protestants and Catholics alike. Whatever Calvert's motives may have been, he undoubtedly adopted a consistent policy of toleration and used his best efforts to avoid religious dissensions among his colonists. His agents were warned at the outset to avoid giving the Protes tants any just grounds for complaint in Virginia or in England. The early years of the new colony were much happier than those of Virginia. A healthful site was found for their first settlement at St. Marys, near the mouth of the Potomac, which the Jesuit, Father White, described as the "greatest river I have seene, so that the Thames is but a little finger to it." Profiting perhaps by Virginia experience, the early Maryland settlers escaped the heavy toll of human life which was paid for the establishment of the older prov ince. They were more fortunate, too, in their relations with their savage neighbors. The Indians about St. Marys were less aggressive and the Jesuits were active in missionary work among them. So the Marylanders were saved from serious border warfare until the growth of the colony brought them into conflict with the more warlike Susquehannocks. They had more trouble with the Virginians, and particularly with one energetic and persistent individual named William Claiborne, who had lately established a trading post on Kent ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF MARYLAND 71 Island in Chesapeake Bay, within the limits of the Mary land grant. Lord Baltimore proposed that Claiborne should keep the land on condition of recognizing the proprietor's government; but the attempt failed and the two parties presently came to blows. In 1638, the English government settled the question for the time being in favor of Lord Balti more, but Claiborne was not satisfied and a few years later took his revenge. Meantime, the proprietor was fairly successful in getting Economic settlers, both Protestant and Catholic, who were willing to Jggjgf*' take up lands on his own terms. These were hberal and manors. not unlike those offered in Virginia. One peculiar feature of the Maryland system, however, was the plan for the establishment of manorial estates. An "adventurer" who took five men to Maryland, paid their transportation, and provided them with certain necessaries, might become a "lord of the manor, " with an estate of a thousand acres, sub ject to an annual rent of twenty shillings. A few manors and manorial courts were actually established; but the in stitution was not adapted to American conditions and failed to take root. Here, as in Virginia, two classes stand out conspicuously in the early immigration: the "adventurers," or promoters, "Adven- who not only came out themselves but brought others with savants.311 them; and the indentured servants. Of the first two hundred colonists who settled at St. Marys, seventeen were classed as "adventurers"; two were brothers of the proprietor and several others were apparently persons of considerable social standing. In Maryland, the white servant remained an important feature of industrial life longer than in any other southern colony, but as each servant was entitled to fifty acres on the expiration of his term of service he some times rose considerably in the social scale. A contemporary pamphlet describes Maryland as very attractive for persons of this class. In the final outcome Maryland had a much 72 THE CHESAPEAKE COLONIES, 1632-1688 Location of settlements. Tobacco. Beginnings of repre sentativegovernment. larger proportion of small proprietors than Virginia. For the first thirty years of Maryland history, the settlements were mainly on the west shore of Chesapeake Bay between the Potomac and the Patuxent; but there were outlying plantations on the upper part of the bay at Kent Island and at the mouth of the Severn River where some Virginia Puritans established a settlement called Providence, on the present site of Annapolis. The Marylanders, like the Vir ginians, devoted themselves largely to tobacco, until in 1666 it was said to be "the only solid staple commodity" of the province. For most purposes the highest authority in the Mary land government was the proprietor. Cecilius Calvert never came to America, and the actual administration was there fore mainly in the hands of his agents, the lieutenant governor and the councilors. The proprietor accepted the principle, stated in the charter, that laws should be made with the consent of the freemen; but a true representative system was only gradually developed. At first all the freemen met, somewhat in the manner of a town meeting, to consider laws proposed by the proprietor. This worked fairly well when the colony was confined to the immediate neighbor hood of St. Marys, but became inconvenient and unfair when new settlements were formed at a distance. For a time absentees were allowed to vote by proxy, much as they are in a modern corporation; but this method gave too much power to a comparatively few officeholders and other influ ential persons. So, in the end, a real representative as sembly was established in which the people could speak through their elected representatives. The assembly was then divided into two houses, as in Virginia, the governor and council in one and the representatives in the other. At first the proprietor insisted that he alone could propose laws; all the assembly could do was to accept or reject his proposals. Finally, however, the representatives RELIGION IN MARYLAND 73 made good their claim to an independent right of originating legislation. The result of this whole development was that the government of Maryland became much like that of Virginia, except that for most purposes the proprietor took the place of the King. Religious conditions in the colony of Maryland were so Problems of different from those in Virginia that a radically different p^prietor! solution was necessary. Here was a Catholic proprietor, holding his title from a King who was himself the official head of the Anglican Church, and working under a charter which definitely recognized that church and no other. He knew also that he was jealously watched by the Puritans in England and his Protestant neighbors in Virginia. The colonists themselves were divided, the upper class being largely Catholic while the poorer element in the community was mainly Protestant or at least non-Catholic. Though the proprietor was anxious not to give offense, the Catholic element, and especiaUy the Jesuit fathers, were very active The Jesuits. in the early history of the colony. An account of Maryland, written in 1633, declared that the "first and most important design" of the colony should be not so much "planting fruits and trees in a land so fruitful," as "sowing the seeds of religion and piety." The Jesuits were anxious to Christian ize the Indians, but they also felt responsible for the spiritual welfare of the Catholic colonists and the conversion of Protestants. According to the Jesuit Annual Letter of 1638, a majority of the Protestants who came out in that year were converted to the Catholic faith. Meantime, Lord Baltimore and his agents tried to deal fairly with both religious parties; and there are cases of Cathohcs being punished for annoying their Protestant neighbors. He was also a zealous defender of his own authority even against the clergy, insisting, for instance, that under the old English law of mortmain they could not acquire land from the Indians without his consent. The 74 THE CHESAPEAKE COLONIES, 1632-1688 Growth of the Protestantelement. EnglishCivil War. The Puritan Common wealth. Maryland Jesuits complained of Lord Baltimore's attitude, but the head of the order in England finally supported him. Under this liberal government, the proportion of Protestant settlers increased until they formed a clear majority. Some of them were ready to five quietly under the proprietary government. Others, however, were more aggressive, par ticularly the considerable group of Puritans who, having suffered persecution in Virginia, accepted Lord Baltimore's invitation to settle in Maryland but soon became his most bitter antagonists. While the Virginians and Marylanders were struggling with their own American problems, their difficulties were increased by the outbreak of the great Enghsh Civil War. Ten years after the granting of the Maryland charter, Charles I was at war with the Long Parliament. Four years later his armies were defeated and dispersed and he himself was a prisoner. Then came three years of con fusion and uncertainty until in 1649 the radical Puritan party tried to solve the problem by the execution of the King. From 1649 to 1660 England was a repubhc, about half the time under the Protectorate of the great Puritan soldier, Oliver Cromwell. When this conflict broke out, a majority of the settlers in the Chesapeake colonies undoubtedly sympathized with the King. Virginia, in particular, was defiantly loyalist even after the King's execution, and presently declared its allegiance to his son, Charles II. When, therefore, the Puritan party was weU in the saddle, the position of these loyalist colonies became decidedly awkward. As early as 1643 the Long Parhament began to interest itself in the colonies and appointed a commission on the subject, headed by the same Earl of Warwick who had formerly been an active member of the Virginia Company, and had subsequently tried to establish a Puritan colony on the island of Providence. For a time the parliamentary leaders were too busy to VIRGINIA UNDER THE COMMONWEALTH 75 pay much attention to America, but they did not forget the Coercive loyalist attitude of the Virginians. In 1650 an ordinance measures' was passed prohibiting trade with that province and the island of Barbados, which had taken a sinular stand. The next year Parliament passed a Navigation Act which pro hibited the export of Virginia tobacco in foreign ships and also named five commissioners to secure the submission of the colonists to the revolutionary government. Three of the five commissioners were sent from England; but as two of them were lost at sea the control of the commission fell into the hands of two Virginians. One of them was WiUiam Claiborne, who had not forgotten his old quarrel with Lord Baltimore; the other was Richard Bennett, a Puritan who had been alienated by Berkeley's intolerant church policy. From such commissioners the existing governments of Virginia. and Maryland could hardly hope for sympathetic treat ment. When the commissioners reached Virginia in 1652, Common- Berkeley and his loyalist friends saw that they could not gOTernment resist and the colony agreed to recognize the sovereign m Virginia. authority of Parliament. Berkeley returned to private life and for the next eight years Virginia was almost an independent republic. Governors were elected by the colonial assembly, which now claimed sovereign authority on behalf of the people. There was some discontent over the Navigation Act of 1651, but on the whole this period was one of prosperity and rapid growth in population. Many of the newcomers were political prisoners sent over by the parliamentary government, or Cavaliers anxious to take refuge from the troubles at home. Lord Baltimore's problem was even more complicated. Besides the hostility of the Puritans in England and his old enemies in Virginia, he had now a strong Puritan ele ment in his own province. In order to avoid criticism he appointed a Protestant governor with instructions to con tinue the policy of toleration. At his suggestion also, the 76 THE CHESAPEAKE COLONIES, 1632-1688 The Tolera tion Act of Maryland. Parliamen tary com missioners in Maryland. The Puritan revolt. assembly, composed partly of Cathohcs and partly of Protestants, passed the Toleration Act of 1649, an impor tant landmark in the history of religious liberty in America. From a twentieth-century standpoint, it was not ideal; there was no toleration except for Christians, and denial of the doctrine of the Trinity was a capital offense. Never theless, in its quite impartial treatment of Catholics and Protestants the law was unusuaUy liberal. The prime motive was one of practical statesmanship, because "the inforcing of the conscience in matters of Religion hath fre quently faUen out to be of dangerous consequence." The Puritans, however, were stiU dissatisfied; and their dissatisfaction increased when, during the temporary ab sence of the Protestant governor, his Catholic deputy issued a proclamation declaring allegiance to King Charles n. The proprietor was not responsible for this blunder, but his enemies promptly took advantage of it. Under these cir cumstances, the same parhamentary commissioners who had dealt with Virginia undertook to settle the affairs of Mary land as well. When they demanded of Governor Stone that he should submit to the authority of the Enghsh Common wealth, he agreed; but he was presently removed for refus ing to substitute in the legal documents of the province the title of the parhamentary government for that of the pro prietor. Stone was later reinstated, but his troubles were by no means over. The Puritan settlers soon organized a strong anti-Catholic uprising. With the help of Claiborne and his feUow commissioners, Stone was again deposed and the government turned over to a revolutionary committee. The insurgents now caUed a new assembly, which was con trolled by the extreme Protestant party; it amended the Toleration Act by excluding from its benefits practically everybody except the Puritans. Meantime, however, the so-called Rump Parliament in England had been dissolved and, CromweU having become THE RESTORATION 77 head of the government as Lord Protector, Baltimore Re&tab- assumed that the parhamentary commissioners in America of^?ent no longer had any authority. He consequently instructed proprietary his officers to reestablish his government in Maryland. The govemment result was a pitched battle in which Governor Stone and his supporters were defeated and Stone himself became a pris oner. The Puritans remained in power during the next two years, but CromweU faUed to support them and Lord Balti more soon recovered control. One of the fundamental con ditions under which his government was restored in 1657 was the Toleration Act of 1649; but the friction between Protestants and Catholics continued to make the proprietor's position difficult and uncertain. The year 1660 was one of great importance for America The as well as for England. The Enghsh republican experiment Restoration- came to an end and Charles II sat on the throne of his fathers, bringing back with him much of the old order in church and state — though some of the changes of the Puritan era had cut so deep that they could not be undone. The Restoration also had its echoes in America, especiaUy in Virginia, where the loyalists once more had a free hand. The assembly having caUed Berkeley back from his retirement and elected him governor, the choice was soon legalized by the King's commission. The old constitution of governor, councilors, and burgesses was now in working order and the Anglican Church was restored to its accustomed place. The population of Virginia was now growing rapidly. Growth of In 1671, Berkeley reported over 40,000, of whom about iremia- 6000 were white servants; there were about 2000 negro slaves, or approximately one twentieth of the whole pop ulation. About 1500 white servants were said to be coming in annuaUy, chiefly Enghsh, with a few Scotch and Irish. In the next two decades the total population increased to about 60,000, with a much larger proportion of negroes, who were graduaUy displacing the white servants. Many 78 THE CHESAPEAKE COLONIES, 1632-1688 of negro slavery. Development influences were at work to bring about this development of negro slavery, not only in Virginia but to a less extent in Maryland. English capitahsts were more and more interested in the slave trade, and companies were organized to carry on the business. Some of the most influential men in the Restoration government were also involved, and in 1672 the Royal African Company was incorporated, with hberal privileges. Meantime, the Chesapeake planters came to beheve that negro slaves were better suited to their conditions than the white servants. The important tobacco industry did not seem to demand more intelligence than could be secured from slave labor, which was more permanent than white service. The planter who bought a negro slave owned him for life and the children of a slave mother inherited her servfle status, whereas white servants could be held only for a term of years. Besides, it was not thought necessary to spend so much money in providing food, shelter, and clothing for the negroes. Nevertheless, Virginia was nearly a century old before the plantation system was thoroughly estabhshed on the basis of negro slavery. The Virginians continued to feel the disadvantages of concentration in tobacco. They never knew what prices they would get in the Enghsh market, which was often depressed by excessive importations. Laws were passed to prevent overproduction, but it was hard to get cooperation among the tobacco-growing colonies. When legal regulation failed, illegal methods were sometimes used, as in the so-caUed tobacco-cutting riots. New attempts were made to establish other industries. Berkeley mentioned the begin ning of silk culture and spoke somewhat less hopefuUy of smaU beginnings in the iron industry. Flax and hemp were also considered, but aU this agitation brought compara tively slight results. Tobacco continued to be exported mainly in Enghsh vessels; there were some freighters from New England but few ships were actuaUy built and owned in The prob lems of the tobacco growers. VIRGINIA PLANTATIONS 79 Virginia. The planter generaUy shipped his tobacco to a merchant in England, who sold it for him and expended the proceeds in English goods, including clothing, furniture, and tools, together with such luxuries as the planter could afford. Being quite uncertain about London prices for the things he sold and bought, the planter rarely knew what his balance in London was. NaturaUy, therefore, he often overdrew his account and got badly into debt. The economic unit in Virginia society was the plantation. Virginia These plantations, which tended to increase in size, were p1*"1"11011 scattered up and down the great rivers and the network of smaUer streams which were the ordinary means of commu nication throughout the whole district. Perhaps the nature of this early plantation life can be understood best by studying the career of an individual planter whose letters have been preserved. WiUiam Fitzhugh, like many other Virginia gentlemen, belonged to an Enghsh merchant faimly William with connections in London and Bristol. About 1670 he a'typicaT came out to practice law in Virginia and after some early P^ter. struggles became very prosperous. By 1686, his holdings of land were large, including the thousand-acre plantation on which he lived and three other tracts, amounting in aU to 23,000 acres. A large part of his home plantation was stfll covered with timber, but about three hundred acres were in "good hearty plantable land." Besides his comfortably furnished dwelling house, there were on this part of his es tate negro quarters with accommodations for twenty-nine slaves. Tobacco was his chief crop, but there were also cornfields, an orchard of 2500 apple trees, and stocks of cattle and hogs. Like his feUow-planters, he put his new capital largely into land and slaves; when he made his wiU in 1700 he had about 54,000 acres. From England, he im ported clothing and other household goods, as weU as an occasional white servant. At one time he asked his agent for a good housewife and the next year he announced 8o THE CHESAPEAKE COLONIES, 1632-1688 The early westwardmovement. AbrahamWood. WilliamByrd. Virginiagrievances. that he would pay "something extraordinary" for a good bricklayer or carpenter. Business had its ups and downs. Sometimes Fitzhugh was "utterly discouraged" by the low prices of tobacco, though not without hope that the "tobacco-cutting" riots might bring prices up again. While the older settlements were outgrowing the prim itive conditions of pioneer life, those early trials were being reproduced among the people who were moving on from the coast plain up the rivers to a new frontier. In the middle years of the seventeenth century, a few Virginians at any rate were anxious to satisfy their curiosity about the country back* of the narrow fringe of coast settlements. One such adventurous spirit was Captain Abraham Wood, and in 1671 a party sent out by him found their way through the Blue Ridge to one of the tributaries of the Ohio River. The chief motive which led men toward the west was the fur trade. During this period important trading expeditions were sent westward, and southwestward into the Cherokee country of western Carolina. It was largely through this Indian trade that WiUiam Byrd and other leading Virginians of the time built up fortunes which they later invested in land and slaves. After these explorers and traders came the more permanent pioneer farmers, who found on the edge of the wUderness the free land which was no longer avaflable in the tide water. With aU these evidences of a vigorous and healthy de velopment, the Virginia of the Restoration period was far from being a contented or harmonious community, and the prevailing discontent finaUy took shape in Bacon's Rebel lion, the first reaUy important popular uprising in American history. This discontent was due in part perhaps to the Navigation Acts, which to the great disgust of the Chesa peake planters were continued and developed by the roy alist parliaments after the Restoration. Not only must BERKELEY'S ADMINISTRATION Bi t-he colonial trade be carried on in English shipping7~T5uf certain enumerated articles, including tobacco, could not be sent to Europe except by way of English ports. Vigorous, though unsuccessful, protests were made against this policy by Governor Berkeley and by John Bland, a London merchant who had relatives in Virginia. GraduaUy, however, the Virginians adjusted themselves to the new situation. They were more seriously disturbed by the lavish grants of land Grants to made by Charles II to some of his courtiers. WhUe stUl in favorites- exUe, he had granted the "Northern Neck," between the Potomac and the Rappahannock, to some of his loyal fol lowers. After his restoration to the throne the grant was renewed and it was proposed to establish a special juris diction in this district, subject, however, to the general authority of the government of Virginia. In 1672 two noblemen, Lord Arlington and Lord Culpeper, were made proprietary landlords for the whole of Virginia for thirty- one years; but the colonists protested so vigorously that this grant was withdrawn. Measures of this kind kept the Virginians in a state of constant anxiety for fear that they might be transferred from the direct jurisdiction of the Crown to the irresponsible control of mercenary courtiers. Though the colonists preferred to remain under the royal Dissatis- government, they were much dissatisfied with the existing Berkeley?11 administration. Many of them were convinced that affairs government. were being mismanaged by a political "machine," through which Governor Berkeley and his friends were promoting the special interests of their class. Berkeley seems to have been at first a rather successful and popular governor; but as he grew older his conservatism became more extreme and even his integrity was questioned. Similar charges were made against the councilors, a group of weU-to-do plant ers who kept a firm grip on the important offices and man aged the land system in such a way as to give themselves more than their fair share of the best lands. Even the House 82 THE CHESAPEAKE COLONIES, 1632-1688 Sectionalism; tidewaterand back country. Bacon and Berkeley. Bacon's Rebellion. of Burgesses was distrusted; sixteen years passed without a new election and the members got out of touch with their constituents. Taxation was said to be excessive and un fairly distributed. This burden was especiaUy resented be cause money appropriated for defense and other public purposes seemed to be spent without tangible results. To a certain extent these divisions were on sectional lines. The frontiersmen believed that the government and the tide water planters were doing Httle to protect them against the savages and that the governor in particular was unwilling to punish outrages for fear of lessening his profits in the Indian trade. These discontented elements found a leader in Nathaniel Bacon, a young man who came to the colony about 1674 and soon took up some land near the frontier. Having unusual abUity and a vigorous personality, with influ ential connections both in England and in Virginia, Bacon soon became a member of the governor's council; but the exposed situation of his estate on the upper James and the killing of one of his servants by the Indians led him to sympathize with the back-country people in their com plaints against Governor Berkeley. Impatient of delay, Bacon organized an independent expedition agamst the Indians, which was immediately condemned by the gov ernor as an unauthorized and rebellious proceeding. A popular uprising, however, compeUed the governor to dis solve the old assembly and caU a new one for the purpose of instituting reforms and dealing with problems of defense. The new assembly passed a series of biUs intended to give the government a more representative character. It tried, for instance, to make the county and parish governments more democratic by putting them in the hands of officers elected by the people. The meeting of this reform assembly, did not, however, solve the problem. When Bacon came up to attend the BACON'S REBELLION 83 session, the governor had him arrested, and though he was released on declaring his submission to the authorities, the antagonism between the two men continued. Bacon then left Jamestown, only to return later at the head of an armed force which compeUed the governor to commission him as its leader in an expedition agamst the Indians. Having yielded only under pressure, Berkeley soon issued a new proclamation denouncing Bacon as a rebel, and a smaU civfl war foUowed, in which the governor was defeated and compeUed to leave the capital. It is hard to say just how far Bacon meant to go in his revolutionary measures. He was charged with being ready to resist even the King's forces if they were sent out against him; there seemed to be some danger also of his being supported by rebellious elements in the neighboring provinces, particularly in North Carolina. In his own proclamations, however, Bacon insisted that he was merely defending the people of Virginia against the corrupt conduct of the governor and his asso ciates. Whatever his plans may have been, they were cut Bacon's short by his sudden death and there was no other leader deatn' who could hold his foUowers together. Berkeley now re- Collapse covered his authority, treating his defeated opponents with °gbeEion. unnecessary harshness. The rebels and their supposed sym pathizers were tried by mUitary process and several were executed. Meantime, the home government, several thousand mfles away from the scene of action, and receiving news only at long intervals, had to act very much in the dark; but commissioners were sent over to enforce the King's author ity and report on the causes of the rebellion. They discov ered on their arrival that the rebellion had been suppressed Recall of • Berkeley and that their first business must be to check the arbitrary proceedings of the governor. Berkeley was recaUed to England, where he died soon afterwards, and one of the commissioners was put in charge of the government. In 84 THE CHESAPEAKE COLONIES, 1632-1688 Failure of the reform movement. The coloniesin 1688. accordance with the King's instructions, a careful investiga tion foUowed, in which the colonists were given a chance to state their grievances. The commissioners finaUy reported, condemning the rebels but recognizing the justice of some of their complaints. Perhaps their most important work was the establishment of satisfactory relations with the Indians. On the whole the popular movement led by Bacon was a faUure. Reform measures passed by the assembly of 1676 were repealed; in other respects too the hopes of the Virginians were disappointed. When the rebellion broke out a serious effort was being made to secure a new charter protecting the constitutional rights and economic interests of the province. A so-caUed charter was actuaUy issued, but it proved to be of slight importance. The rebellion had also faUed to weaken seriously the control of govern ment by a comparatively smaU officeholding class, and Berkeley's successors, Lord Culpeper and Lord Howard of Effingham, were not less arbitrary or corrupt than the old Cavalier governor. Berkeley, with aU his faults, was a real Virginian, with a permanent interest in the province; the new men were courtiers, chiefly concerned with their own personal fortunes. For a time it looked as if the privUeges of the assembly would be seriously impaired, though in the end this attempt was given up and the rep resentative principle was preserved. At the close of the first quarter century after the Res toration the poUtical situation on both sides of the Potomac was unstable. In Virginia there was much discontent not only with the royal governors but also with the large planters, who sat in the councU, held other important provincial offices, and controUed the local administration. The people of Maryland had simUar grievances against their govern ment, which was largely in the hands of the proprietor and his little group of officeholders; but here there were NEW ENGLISH COMMONWEALTHS 85 other compUcations. The proprietor who was responsible for the government of the colonists was also their landlord, with private interests often opposed to theirs. Rehgious differences also interfered with mutual understanding. On the whole, the proprietors tried to deal fairly with the Protestant settlers, who now formed a large majority of the population; but the latter complained that offices were too largely fiUed by Catholics, and this jealousy, whether reasonable or not, was a standing menace to the proprietary government. The detaUs of these poUtical controversies are often confused and uninteresting. Yet, if we try to see them in proper perspective, one really important fact stands out. After about three quarters of a century of colonizing effort, New Engiisi there were now two vigorous English commonwealths, wealths"" with a combined population of perhaps 80,000, facing each other across the Potomac. Their institutions were largely modeled on those of the mother country; but they were also weU rooted in the American sofl and quite capable of making trouble for royal officials who faUed to respect the colonial point of view. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES Channing, United States, I, chs. IX, XVIII; and II, 63-65, General 79-93. Fiske, J., Old Virginia and Her Neighbors, I, chs. VIII, accounts. LX; and II, chs. X, XI, XIII. Johnston, M., Pioneers of the Old South, chs. IX-XIII. Tyler, L. G., England and America, chs. VT-VIII, with Andrews, C. M., Colonial Self-Government, chs. XHI-XV. Browne, W. H., Maryland a Palatinate, chs. I-VIII; and his Founding of George and Cecilius Calvert. Eggleston, E., Beginners of a Nation, ajy bk. Ill, ch. I. Articles by B. C. Steiner in Johns Hopkins Studies, XXI, XXIV, XXV (detailed narrative of early years) . Shea, J. G., Catholic Church in Colonial Days, 1-85 (scholarly account by a Catholic historian). Institutional development may be studied 86 THE CHESAPEAKE COLONIES, 1632- 1688 Marylandsources. Development of Virginia. Virginiasources. in Mereness, N. D., Maryland as a Proprietary Province; and Osgood, American Colonies, II. Charter in Hall, C. C, Narratives of Early Maryland, 101-112; extracts in Macdonald, Select Charters, no. 12. Descriptive material in HaU, Narratives, and Hart, Contemporaries, I, nos. 72-77, 84 (Toleration Act; extract also in Macdonald, no. 21). Wertenbaker, T. J., Virginia and the Stuarts, chs. IV-VIH. Osgood, H. L., American Colonies, HI, chs. VIII (exceUent account of Bacon's rebeUion), LX. See also for economic and institutional development the works of Brace, cited in ch. Ill, and Bassett, J. S., Writings of William Byrd, pp. ix-xl. Extracts in Hart, Contemporaries, I, nos. 68-71, 85-88, espe ciaUy no. 70 (Berkeley's report, 1671). Andrews, C. M., Narra tives of the Insurrections, n-141 (Bacon's rebeUion). Interesting Fitzhugh letters illustrating social life, in Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, I, H. CHAPTER V NEW ENGLAND PIONEERS In most of the English colonies in America, the chief Promoters promoters did not themselves become permanent colonists, colonists. but contented themselves with furnishing capital, sending out settlers, managing affairs from England, and drawing such profits as they could from their investments. This was at first true even in the case of New England. In the end, however, that section was left open for enterprises of a different kind, in which the leaders actuaUy crossed the sea with their foUowers to bund new homes and com monwealths. The New England seaboard was fairly weU known to Early plans for New English seamen by the beginning of the seventeenth century England. and a number of exploring voyages during the next few years helped to stimulate interest in it, especiaUy as a profitable base for the fur trade and the fisheries. Out of this in terest grew the Plymouth Company, which, under the first Virginia charter, made an unsuccessful attempt to plant a colony at the mouth of the Kennebec River. An important event in the development of Enghsh knowledge about New England was John Smith's voyage of 1614, in which he ex plored the seaboard with considerable care. In a book pubUshed shortly afterwards, he set forth in glowing terms the possibilities of this region. After Smith's voyage, Sir Ferdinando Gorges and some of the other men who had been interested in the old Plymouth Company determined to take advantage of these opportunities. Accordingly they secured from the King a charter which incorporated 87 88 NEW ENGLAND PIONEERS The Council for New England. Sir Ferdinando Gorges. Failure of proprietarygovernment. Economicand religious motives. them as the CouncU for New England with the right to colonize and govern the vast territory lying between the fortieth and forty-eighth paraUels of latitude and stretch ing across the continent to the Pacific. This was done in complete disregard of the Dutch traders on the Hudson as weU as the struggling French settlements of Acadia and the St. Lawrence vaUey. This patent was surrendered fif teen years later, but during that time it had a marked influence on New England history. The most conspicuous and active member of the New England CouncU was Gorges. His ideal seems to have been the organization of a great dominion of New England, with subordinate proprietary governments controUed by indi viduals or trading companies. Another important figure in the CouncU, as weU as in national politics, was Robert, Earl of Warwick, who, hke several other members of the CouncU, had been actively associated with the Virginia Company; he was soon taking a keen interest in various plans for Puritan colonization. From time to time the CouncU made grants to individuals and companies for the estabUshment of trading and fishing stations; in two in stances proprietary governments were seriously undertaken, one in Maine by Gorges himself, and the other in New Hampshire by Captain John Mason. Both these enter prises faUed, but other grants proved to be of lasting im portance, notably those which gave the Puritan pioneers of Plymouth and Massachusetts their first legal titles to the land they occupied and enabled them to begin a unique series of experiments in colonial self-government. In the founding of these self-governing Puritan colonies, economic motives cannot, of course, be ignored. New England, like Virginia, could not have developed as it did if large numbers of people had not befieved that they could make an easier, or a better, living for themselves in America. Yet, when aU is said, it cannot be denied that rehgion, in PURITANISM 89 the form of Puritanism, played a greater part there than in any other English colonies, with the possible exception of Pennsylvania. To understand New England, therefore, it is necessary to begin with some study of seventeenth-cen tury Puritanism. Definitions of Puritanism are numerous and generaUy Puritanism. unsatisfactory. Many things commonly caUed Puritan are not pecufiar to Puritans; others are characteristic of par ticular kinds of Puritans, but not of aU. It is safe to begin, however, by saying that Puritans were radical Protestants. Whatever their differences on other points, they were all dissatisfied with the "middle way," taken by the Church of England, between communion with the Roman Church on the one side and thoroughgoing Protestantism on the other. By thoroughgoing Protestantism they meant, above all, getting back from the traditional practices and ideas of the medieval church to what they considered a more completely Bibfical Christianity. For them the final authority in rehg ion was the Bible, rather than the clergy or the church as a whole. In their interpretation of the Bible, the Puritans were Calvinism. influenced by certain great teachers, of whom the most im portant was the French reformer, John Calvin. Under the guidance of these teachers, they concluded that Biblical Christianity required simpler forms of worship than those of the Roman and Anglican communions. The use of art to symbolize rehgious truth seemed to them fuU of danger, likely to obscure rather than reveal spiritual truth. They beheved in the sacraments of baptism and the communion, but laid special stress on preaching. The Puritans held that church organization also needed to be simplified; they found no warrant in the Bible for the authority then exer cised by the English bishops; some of the radicals wished to aboUsh that office altogether, though others were content with lessening its powers. Like most Protestants, they 9° NEW ENGLAND PIONEERS Puritan morality. Differentkinds of Puritans. The Separatists. emphasized the principle of salvation by faith rather than by compUance with ecclesiastical forms and they accepted Calvin's doctrine that saving faith came only to those who had been divinely chosen or "elected." The EngUsh Puri tans of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries felt bound to protest against lax standards of moraUty, and many of them were doubtless excessively severe in their judgments of themselves and of other people, often condemning, as sin ful, enjoyments which seemed to others quite innocent. This state of mind, however, is not peculiar to Puritans strictly so caUed; it has been characteristic of many in tensely rehgious persons, regardless of the particular creed they happen to profess. A more distinctive characteristic of the English Puritans was their insistence on strict obedi ence to Old Testament precepts about Sabbath observance. Agreeing fairly weU in these fundamental matters, the Puritans were much divided among themselves about de- taUs of doctrine, modes of worship, and ideas of church government; and out of these differences there developed finaUy a large number of sects. At the beginning of the colonial era, the most important line of cleavage among these people was on the question of their relation to th*e national church — between the Puritans of various shades who wished to stay in the church and try to mold it in accordance with their own views and those who considered it so hopelessly wrong that aU Christians should withdraw from it. This Separatist group became the pioneers of Puritan colonization in New England and though very few in numbers exerted an important influence on those who foUowed. The distinguishing characteristic of the Separatists was their conception of the church. They rejected whoUy the idea of a national church. To them a church was an asso ciation of the true Christian believers who Uved in any particular community, a carefuUy sifted group of those THE PILGRIMS 91 who were divinely "elected" to be saved. Instead of an episcopal system of government, they believed in a "con gregational " organization in which the minister and other church officers were chosen by the members. At the end of Elizabeth's reign the Separatist groups were few and weak; there were some scholars and gentry among them but on the whole they came from the less influential classes. The government regarded their doctrines as dangerous to good order in church and state, and they were condemned even by many of the Puritans. On the whole, they were strongest in the eastern counties and in such towns as Norwich, where there had been a considerable immigration of radical Protestants from the Netherlands. During the early years of James I, the Separatists were reinforced by a number of clergy and laymen who were disappointed by his unfriendly attitude toward Puritan elements in the national church; but they continued to be a smaU and persecuted group, forced to meet in secret or to take refuge abroad. In HoUand they found an asylum among the Dutch Calvinists and formed a few churches of their own. One Httle Separatist community, destined to play a The Scroohy notable part in American history, was formed at Scrooby consreeatlon- Manor, in Nottinghamshire near where it joins the coun ties of York and Lincoln. Curiously enough, the manor house in which these people met belonged to the Archbishop of York; one of the archbishops of this province during Elizabeth's reign was the father of Sir Edwin Sandys, the liberal leader in the Virginia Company, and both father and son were sympathetic toward the Puritans. Most of the members of this little congregation were obscure people, but there were two interesting men among them. William Brewster, who kept the manor house, was then a postmaster. Brewster had studied at Cambridge University and was a considerable collector of books on politics and theology. One of their teachers, John Robinson, was a man of real intel- 92 NEW ENGLAND PIONEERS The Pil grims in Holland. Reasons for leaving Holland. Organiza tion of the enterprise. lectual distinction. He held for a time a feUowship at Cam bridge University; but his heretical opinions shut him out from a career in the university or in the church, and he became instead a prolific and able writer on Calvinistic theology and the congregational theory of church government. With others of their faith, several members of the Scrooby congregation took refuge in HoUand, and finaUy settled in the city of Leyden, where for twelve years they engaged in various trades and industries, whUe Robinson became a member of the Leyden University and took part in the theological controversies of the time. It soon became evident, however, that it would be difficult for these "PU- grims" to preserve their separate community life, their Enghsh nationality, and their distinctive rehgious ideals. It was not easy, either, to make a satisfactory hving under these conditions. To aU these trials there was added the disturbing prospect of a reopening of the war between the Dutch and the Spaniards. It was not strange, therefore, that the thoughts of the Pilgrims turned to the New World in the hope of beginning there a new life under more favor able conditions. They hoped also, to use the words of one of their leaders, that they might lay a foundation "for the propagating and advancing the gospeU of the Kingdom of Christ in those remote parts of the world; yea though they should be but even as stepping stones unto others for the performing of so great a work." The decision to go to America was made only after much debate, in which the hardships and dangers of the enterprise were pointed out; but the braver spirits insisted that "all great and honor able actions are accompanied with great difficulties," and must be "enterprised and overcome with answerable courages." Some difficult business problems had to be solved before the project could be carried into effect. For the land on which the settlement was to be made, the PUgrims turned to the Virginia Company, which, under the leader- THE FOUNDING OF PLYMOUTH 93 ship of Sandys, wanted settlers and was not unfriendly to the Puritans. A grant was finaUy secured, and their next task was to reach an understanding with the English govern ment. In the effort to secure the King's approval, they took pains to declare their loyalty to the Crown and stated their rehgious opinions in such a way as to cause the least possible offense. They were so far successful that James I agreed to " connive at them " as long as they behaved peaceably. A most serious problem was that of getting capital and it was finally solved by a partnership between the PUgrims and a group of London business men. As in the case of Virginia, a joint-stock company was formed, with shares divided between the emigrants and the London partners. A Virginia precedent was foUowed also in setting up for the first seven years a communal system in which aU the land was held and worked for the company. FinaUy all these difficulties were overcome and on September 6, 1620, the Mayflower sailed from Plymouth. Its company consisted chiefly of members of the Leyden congregation, some of whom, however, including Robinson himself, were left behind; some of the rest were Separatists also, but others were merely employees of the company. After a stormy voyage of more than two months the May flower made land in what is now Provincetown harbor, on Cape Cod; another month passed before they finaUy selected The found- as the place of their settlement the harbor of Plymouth. Plymouth. December was a bad season for beginning a new settlement on the New England coast, and for the first year the death rate of the Plymouth people was comparable with that at Jamestown. The PUgrims fortunately estabUshed friendly relations with some of their Indian neighbors — relations which were maintained for more than fifty years. As com pared with Virginia, the period of extreme hardship was short. Though there was a scarcity of food for some time, the worst was over by the end of the first year. 94 NEW ENGLAND PIONEERS Economic Here at Plymouth the Pilgrims were outside the jurisdic- cobny° e tion °f the Virginia Company and simply squatters on land which belonged to the CouncU for New England. With the help of influential friends, however, they secured in 1621 a grant from the councU. This was enlarged in 1630 in favor of some of the principal settlers; and subsequently transferred to the colony as a whole. After a few years of unsatisfactory experience, the communal plan was abandoned and the land was aUotted to individuals, first temporarUy and then permanently. The colonists were also able before long to buy out the London partners and thus secure complete control of their own business affairs. Under these conditions, "New Plymouth" developed into a community of smaU farmers with some interest in the fisheries and a fairly prosperous trade in furs, not only with the Indians in their immediate neighborhood but in places as far away as the Maine coast and the Connecticut vaUey. The po- The poUtical status of Plymouth was always precarious; of the colony, the colonists never received a charter from the King, and the CouncU for New England probably had no right to authorize their government. Left as they were without strictly legal authority, they proceeded to organize a prac- The May- ticaUy repubUcan system. The famous "Mayflower Corn- Compact. Pact" which they adopted just before landing was not a constitution, but simply an agreement to abide by the wiU of the majority. For the business of a smaU community like this only the simplest kind of organization was neces sary, and that was aU they had. They chose a governor every year to handle some necessary business and represent them in their relations with the outside world; later, as the business developed, assistants were similarly elected. Neces sary regulations or laws were made by the settlers at a general meeting. For a time the town of Plymouth and the colony of New Plymouth were practicaUy identical; but as new INFLUENCE OF PLYMOUTH 95 towns were estabUshed the general assembly of aU the free men was replaced by a gathering of representatives from the towns. Much of the success of this simple but practical government was doubtless due to its governor, WiUiam William Bradford, who was first chosen a few months after the land- Bradford- ing and reelected year after year. He was not only an effi cient leader but something of a scholar as weU; his history of the colony is likely always to stand as a classic of early American Uterature. The PUgrims were now free to carry out their ideals of influence reUgious worship and church government. The congrega- piy^outh tional church system which they estabUshed embodied the colony- same principle of democratic self-government as the civU order which they buUt upon the Mayflower Compact, and it had a definite influence upon the later Puritan colonies. In this as in other respects, Plymouth is important primarily as the pioneer in a new movement. Always smaU and com paratively poor, it was soon overshadowed, and finaUy annexed, by the younger and more prosperous Massachusetts Bay Colony. Nevertheless, the Plymouth PUgrims wUl always be remembered as having pointed the way which was foUowed by others to far greater achievements; they had truly been "as a stepping stone unto others." Besides the colony of New Plymouth, which occupied Early settle- only a smaU area in the southeastern corner of the present MassLchu- state of Massachusetts, there were by 1630 a number of setts Bay- smaU settlements around the shores of Massachusetts Bay, based upon grants by the CouncU for New England. None of these grants, however, has any lasting importance for American history, except one; that is the one made by the councU in 1628 to the Massachusetts Bay Company. On the basis of this grant, confirmed the next year by a royal charter, there was estabUshed the strongest of aU the Puri tan commonwealths, and, indeed, the strongest colony planted up to that time by the Enghsh in any part of America. 96 NEW ENGLAND PIONEERS The Puritanoutlookin 1629. Mutual intolerance. This new Puritan emigration, unlike that of the PUgrims, stood in the closest relation to the central issues of English national life. Its leaders were members of a great national party, some of whom fought the battles of parliamentary government and the Puritan faith in England, while others saw their best opportunity for attaining their ideals in the founding of new commonwealths in America. To the typical Puritan of 1629, the European prospect seemed very dark. After more than a decade of fighting in Germany, the Protestants seemed to be badly beaten there. In France the uprisings of Huguenot nobles and cities had been crushed by the great cardinal-statesman, RicheUeu, notwithstanding a badly managed Enghsh intervention in their behalf. At home Charles I and Bishop Laud, his chief ecclesiastical adviser, were suspected by the Puritans of desiring to undo the results of the Reformation. Laud had little more sympathy with the papacy than the Puritans, but he and his "high church" associates were undoubtedly trying to restore some of the old ceremonial; and that meant, from a Puritan point of view, a return to Rome. It also seemed to the Puritans that Laud and his friends were getting away from orthodox views in theology, more particu larly from the Calvinistic teaching about "election" which for a time had a strong hold even among the Anghcan bishops. Neither side was reaUy tolerant. Laud wanted to make everyone conform to his ideas of ceremonial, and episcopal authority; the Puritans, whUe claiming their own right to vary from the prescribed services of the church, were fiercely intolerant of any departures from Calvinistic orthodoxy and denounced the King for his encouragement of Sunday sports. The Puritans, for the most part, did not wish to leave the church; but rather to reform and control it. For the present, however, the King and the "high church" men seemed to be having their own way. Nonconforming clergymen were MASSACHUSETTS BAY COMPANY 97 suffering persecution, and the members of Laud's party were receiving the important appointments in the church. In poUtics, conditions seemed equaUy discouraging, for The Puritan most Puritans beUeved that the cause of Protestantism was English closely bound up with that of free parhamentary govern- P°litics- ment. In 1628, the House of Commons forced King Charles to accept the Petition of Right, forbidding various forms of taxation without consent of Parhament and also forbidding the arbitrary imprisonment of accused persons without due process of law. Questions arose, however, as to the interpre tation of the Petition, and the parliamentary party charged the King with breaking his word. In the Parhament of 1629, the Ulegal acts of the King and the so-caUed "popish" meas ures of Laud were violently attacked, with the result that the King dissolved Parliament, imprisoned some of his oppo nents, and got on for ten years without any parhament at aU. The King's principal advisers during this period of autocratic rule were Laud and the very able, though some times high-handed, statesman, Sir Thomas Wentworth, better known by his later title as the Earl of Strafford. With this gloomy outlook in the Old World, it seemed to many Puritans that the best way of preparing for a brighter day was to leave Europe to its fate for the present and try to buUd up in America "a bulwark against the Kingdom of "a bulwark Anti-Christ." There they trusted the Lord would "create Antichrist." a new heaven and a new earth, " "new churches and a new commonwealth together." Puritan ideals are not at aU apparent, however, in the The Massa- businesslike document by which the Council for New Eng- Company. ay land gave to the Massachusetts Bay Company the territory extending from three mUes north of the Merrimac to three miles south of the Charles River, with a westward extension to the Pacific. The main object proposed was to make money out of the fisheries and the fur trade and to send out colo nists who would engage in these industries. Presently such 98 NEW ENGLAND PIONEERS The charter of 1629. TheCambridge Agreement and the great mi gration. Signers of the Cambridge Agreement. a colony was sent out to Salem on the north shore of Massa chusetts Bay under a governor appointed by the company. The royal charter of 1629 which gave the company legal authority to govern its colonists seems equaUy innocent of any Puritan design. On its face, it is like many other colonial charters giving EngUsh corporations the right to govern the people whom they sent across the sea. There was, however, one mysterious feature of this document which made it an effective instrument for very different purposes. The absence of any clause fixing the head office of the com pany in London made possible the transfer of control from mere promoters at home to actual colonists in America. Thus the charter of a commercial corporation became the constitution of a self-governing commonwealth • — the means of carrying on a radical experiment in church and state. By 1629 a number of Puritan gentlemen were ready to take advantage of such an opportunity as this charter offered; and in August twelve of them, only six of whom were original members of the company, signed the "Cambridge Agreement," promising to migrate to New England not later than March, 1630, provided the government of the company, with the charter itself, should be entrusted to those members who became actual colonists. Shortly after wards, this condition was met; new officers were elected and John Winthrop, one of the signers of the agreement, was chosen governor. Preparations were vigorously pushed, and by March, 1630, Winthrop set saU for New England with a company of emigrants large enough to require eleven ships. Thus began the great migration, which in ten years took something like twenty thousand people to New England. Some idea of the leaders in this movement can be gained by studying the signatures to the Cambridge Agreement. Two of the signers had married sisters of the Earl of Lincoln, a Puritan leader of the parUamentary party; with them was Thomas Dudley, who had been a steward of the Earl's John Winthrop JOHN WINTHROP 99 estate. Another notable figure was Sir Richard Saltonstall; though he did not settle permanently in New England, he had a long fine of New England descendants and was him self an active promoter of Puritan policies on both sides of the Atlantic. There were other men of force and abiUty among the early leaders; but, on the whole, the man who best represented the character and ideals of the colony was Governor Winthrop. John Winthrop belonged to a substantial famUy of j0hn country gentlemen, from whom he inherited the manor of Wmthr°P» Groton in Suffolk, one of the "eastern counties" which played an important part in the CivU War on the Puritan side and from which a large proportion of the Massachusetts emigrants came. Winthrop was born in the year of the Spanish Armada and was, therefore, about forty-two when he began his American career. He studied for a short time at Cambridge University, but an early marriage took him away from his studies. He did, however, study law after wards; and as lord of the manor, justice of the peace, and attorney in the Court of Wards, he was accustomed to legal business. His desire to migrate probably came in part from economic causes; though he had a fairly good estate, the demands on his income were heavy, including the edu cation of his sons at Dublin and Cambridge Universities. Nevertheless, the serious reader of Winthrop's famUy letters must feel that the rehgious motive was uppermost in his mind — that he hoped to bear his part in the estabUshment of an ideal Christian community. An important part in the new enterprise was taken by a Puritan group of Puritan clergymen, who were consulted in England ergy- and who accompanied the emigrants to their new home. They were generaUy university graduates, ordained in the Church of England but unwilling to conform to the AngU- can system as interpreted by Laud. The ablest of these John ministers was John Cotton, a feUow of Emmanuel CoUege, Cotton- IOO NEW ENGLAND PIONEERS Mingling oi religious and economic motives. Rapid de velopment. Cambridge, and afterwards the popular vicar of an AngUcan parish in the seaport town of Boston, England, a name soon to be made more famous by the younger and greater Boston in Massachusetts. After trying for many years to reconcUe Puritan ideas and practices with his position in the estab lished church, Cotton was cited before the High Commis sion and forced to take refuge in Massachusetts. There he was much admired and had the satisfaction of seeing his ideals of church and state to a large extent realized. It is not so easy to teU what were the thoughts and pur poses of the many thousand obscure emigrants who foUowed the more conspicuous clergy and gentry. Some undoubtedly sympathized heartily with the hopes of their leaders. One of these "plain people," Edward Johnson, left behind him a book caUed The Wonder-Working Providence of Sion's Saviour in New England, whose very title suggests the strong rehgious feeling which inspired him to do his modest part in the estabUshment of a new Christian state. Besides these ardent Puritans, there were many others — yeomen, tenant farmers, mechanics, and smaU tradesmen, who were attracted to the New World chiefly by the desire for land and better homes. In the eastern and midland counties, particularly, this was a period of serious economic unrest. The early development of Massachusetts was much more rapid than that of the Chesapeake colonies. Virginia after seventeen years of strenuous effort had only about 1 200 inhabitants; Massachusetts after thirteen years had more than 16,000. The new colony did not escape altogether the tragic features of pioneering; two hundred settlers died during the first year. After that, however, there was noth ing to compare with the terrible mortahty which for nearly twenty years seemed to carry off the Virginia settlers almost as fast as the company could send them out. The rapid growth of Massachusetts is aU the more striking because many of the first settlers went out within the first ten years MASSACHUSETTS BAY IOI to found other colonies, which soon developed a vigorous, independent life of their own. The early history of Massachusetts is associated almost Geographic entirely with a smaU area around the shores of Massachusetts factors- Bay. On the south, it did not include more than the present suburban area of Boston; to the northward, there was the company's first settlement at Salem, and a few little villages beyond Cape Ann. The whole stretch of coast line may be covered to-day in a motor trip ,of a few hours. From the point of view of a farmer accustomed to the rich lands of the Mississippi vaUey, the region has few attractions. The ground close to the shore is hiUy, with outcropping rock almost everywhere, and the New England farmer, except in the comparatively fertUe vaUey of the Connecticut River, has had to work hard for meager, returns. The Massachusetts seaboard also lacked great, hospitable, tidal rivers like those of Virginia to furnish easy transportation through the country. So the settlements tended to cling more closely to the sea, which was the main highway of colonial commerce. Nevertheless, in New England as elsewhere, farming was the essential foundation of community life. Upon the farmers with their Indian corn and their wheat rested the more dis tinctive and conspicuous New England activities of com merce and the fisheries. This was not a kind of agriculture which could thrive on ignorant labor and easy-going methods; it required inteUigent individual industry working on lines of community cooperation. Here land was farmed not in large plantations with half-savage negro slaves, but mainly by smaU proprietors with the help of a few "hired men." One matter in which these settlers were deeply interested ^wland was the system of land tenure; here Massachusetts, and land system New England in general, stood out in sharp contrast to the other colonies. The original title was, as elsewhere, con sidered to be in the King, though the colonists generaUy recognized the Indian title also and often acquired it by 102 NEW ENGLAND PIONEERS Community spirit. Lumber and fish. New England commerce. peaceful purchase. From the King, through the Council for New England, the legal title passed to the General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Company, which after the transfer of the charter became practicaUy the legislature of the colony. The actual settlement of a particular neighborhood ordinarily began with a grant by the General Court to a group of proprietors, who proceeded to lay out a town and make aUotments to individual settlers. The holders of these aUotments became real owners, with no feudal services and no quitrents. These freehold lands were, however, held subject to the welfare of the community as a whole; and, as in England, there were common lands — meadow, pasture, or woodland — in which the inhabitants had a joint interest. Community spirit was emphasized by the fact that many New England settlements were made by church congrega tions, whose members, sometimes led by their pastors, had emigrated together and wished to live together in their new homes. Out of these conditions developed also a cer tain exclusiveness; the early New England towns were extremely careful about the admission of new settlers, some times insisting that no one should acquire land without the consent of the town. GeneraUy speaking, New England agriculture could not do much more than supply the local market; there was no agricultural product like tobacco to exchange in large quan tities for European goods. Indeed, Massachusetts ulti mately came to depend for some of its wheat and flour upon New York and the colonies farther south. New England soU did, however, furnish one important article of export: the forests provided abundant suppUes of timber, some times made up into ships which were occasionaUy sold abroad, and sometimes cut into various kinds of lumber for export to the West Indies and even to Europe. The sea itself, moreover, furnished the New Englanders with another important staple. There were the small-scale fisheries near MASSACHUSETTS GOVERNMENT 103 their own shores, and the cod fisheries on the Banks of New foundland, reached by more venturesome voyages. For New England, as for old England, the fisheries were indeed a "nursery of seamen," and seamen of a particularly hardy breed. The uses of fish were varied: it furnished food for the people, fertilizer for farms, and an essential article of trade, especiaUy to the island colonies. Thus Massachusetts like Virginia had its staple exports, but whUe the Virginians depended mainly on European shipping and carried on then- trade almost entirely with England, the New Englanders buUt their own ships and soon developed an important foreign trade. A certain independence was, therefore, a charac teristic feature of New England commerce. Puritans, like other men, had to face economic facts; Economic and before long they had won from the land and from the fndSpaenty sea a good deal more than a bare hving. Meantime their "Bible c°»- 0 . ° monwealtn. leaders, at least, were quite sure that man does not "live by bread alone." WhUe the farmers were planting corn and the fishermen were going down to the sea in ships, some among them were working hard on the foundations of that "Bible Commonwealth" which they hoped would serve not only themselves and their chUdren, but perhaps also the troubled peoples of the Old World. The legal basis of the whole experiment was the royal Government charter. By this document, which Winthrop and his asso- first charter. dates brought over with them, almost unlimited authority for the management of colony business was put in the hands of the stockholders, or "freemen," of the company. The decisions of the freemen in the "General Court," or stockholders' meeting, were to be carried into effect by the governor and assistants, who corresponded roughly to the president and directors of a present-day corporation. These executive officers were to be chosen annuaUy by the free men and had httle independent authority. Almost the only limitation on the powers of the General Court, other io4 NEW ENGLAND PIONEERS Church membership a qualifica tion for voters. The Puritan oligarchy. than a general acknowledgment of aUegiance to the King, was the requirement that colonial laws must not be in conflict with the laws of England. It was this businesslike charter which the founders of Massachusetts developed into the constitution of a practicaUy republican government. The first problem was to decide what people in the colony should exercise these hberal powers. Only a few members of the company had crossed the ocean, and if aU of them had come they would stiU have been only an insig nificant fraction of the whole population. Certainly this handful of people could not long impose their wiU upon the thousands of incoming settlers. Nevertheless, the leaders were determined to keep the power in the hands of men who sympathized with the main object for which the colony was founded, namely, the estabfishment of a dis tinctly Puritan commonwealth. Though a considerable number of new freemen were soon admitted, it was agreed that no one should henceforth receive this privi lege and become a fully qualified voter unless he were a member of some church in the colony. No congregation was, of course, approved unless it conformed to the ortho dox Puritan standards in theology, manner of worship, and church government. Even the church-membership qualification was not suffi cient from the point of view of the ruling group. For the first four years, the governor and the assistants kept the powers almost entirely in their own hands, sometimes even such important matters as the election of the governor and the levying of taxes. This course, however, provoked great discontent and, in 1634, Winthrop and his associates were compeUed to accept a representative system, by which the freemen in each town, instead of coming up in person to meetings of the General Court, should send their deputies. This was quite as much at variance with the charter as the arbitrary methods of the governor and assistants; but THE BIBLE COMMONWEALTH 105 it was obviously impossible for aU the freemen to transact business in a general meeting. The estabUshment of the representative system by no Assistants means ended the conflict between the httle group of leaders and dePuties- and those who wished a wider distribution of political power. When the General Court met, with the governor, the assist ants, and the deputies sitting together, the governor and as sistants frequently took one side and a majority of the dep uties ranged themselves in opposition. In such cases, the assistants were likely to be outvoted by the deputies, who were much more numerous. The assistants now claimed that no measure could be passed without a majority for it in each group. This claim, which meant that the assist ants could veto any action desired by the deputies, was strenuously resisted; but the assistants finaUy had their way and the Massachusetts legislature thus developed The bi« into a two-house system. The victory of the assistants ^^j,; was made possible in part by the attitude of influential ministers, like Cotton, who felt that the smaUer group of leaders could be better trusted to carry through the ideal of a Bible Commonwealth; some of the ministers even talked of aUowing colonial officers to serve for life. In short, this early Massachusetts government, though practicaUy repubUcan in the sense that final authority rested with the qualified voters, was not democratic. The church members, who alone could vote, were only a smaU minority, and even within this minority a stUl smaUer group generaUy controUed the poUcies of the colony. The Bible Commonwealth idea influenced the system Puritanism of law as weU as the form of government. Though the j^mmon charter required that colonial laws should conform as nearly kw- as practicable to those of England, yet in the actual admin istration of justice, common-law precedents were frequently set aside in favor of principles derived from the Old Tes tament, especiaUy from the Mosaic code. This led to much io6 NEW ENGLAND PIONEERS The Body of Liberties. Local government. The town meeting. uncertainty about the law to be appUed in any given case; arid seemed to give the magistrates too much discretion. So there came a demand for a definite code of laws in order that the individual might know what his rights and duties were. For a time the leaders objected to such a code, but they finaUy gave way and in 1641 the so-caUed Body of Liberties was adopted. This code, though based in part on the common law, shows at many points an effort to foUow Biblical precedents. Some of its provisions now seem harsh and narrow; but others show a distinct advance in Ub- eraUty and humanity over the theory and practice of the old country. The local government of Massachusetts also varied con siderably from the EngUsh practice. This was less true of the county government, which foUowed roughly the old English model with its justices of the peace and its sheriff. In the matter of town government, however, we find that the New Englanders took a more independent course. This was partly because of economic conditions, which led to compact settlements and emphasized the need of coopera tion; but reUgion also had an important influence, since the prevailing congregational system of church organization tended to strengthen the spirit of local self-government. The organization of town governments was simple; some features of the EngUsh parish were retained and the most vital institution was the town meeting, composed of aU the qualified voters. Here aU important business was trans acted, including the choice of the selectmen, who formed a kind of executive committee. The town was responsible for preserving order within its limits, and for the care of its own poor; it could also adopt by-laws regulating other local affairs and vote the taxes necessary for their various pur poses. The vigor and self-reliance of the New England towns has rightly been emphasized; but they were not completely independent. Their by-laws had to be approved by the CHURCH AND STATE IN MASSACHUSETTS 107 county justices, and they were subject to the higher au thority of the General Court. For faUure to perform duties assigned to them by law, the towns could be and actuaUy were punished by fine or otherwise. On the other hand, it was the town which elected representatives to the General Court or assembly; it was also the unit for purposes of taxation, each town being assigned its quota of the colony tax which it was expected to coUect from the inhabitants. From the point of view of the thoroughgoing Puritans, Organization the chief object of aU their institutions was to establish cmird,. what they beheved to be the true Christian faith and worship. Though the early leaders, both clergy and laymen, generaUy regarded themselves as members of the Anglican Church and at the time of their emigration professed a real affec tion for it in spite of its "corruptions," they took a much more radical stand on their arrival in New England. They refused to permit the use of the EngUsh prayer book and, with some help from their neighbors at Plymouth, they organized their churches on the congregational basis. The plan of church government which was graduaUy developed under the leadership of John Cotton was a compromise between the two systems now known as Congregational and Presbyterian. TheoreticaUy each congregation was a seU-governing unit, choosing its own ministers. ActuaUy, however, the local church was not always free from inter ference; the minister and elders also had more power than was quite consistent with the strictly congregational theory. This new organization gave the Puritans a free hand to carry out their ideas of a severely simple service, with preaching as its principal feature. This system of faith and worship having been set up Union of in the church, it was considered the duty of the state to ^^ and support it. Consequently the inhabitants, whether church members or not, were taxed to support Puritan ministers and required to attend their services. Other rehgious duties 108 NEW ENGLAND PIONEERS were enforced by law, including the strictest kind of Sabbath observance. Heretics were not only dismissed from the church but banished from the colony. In this close as sociation of church and state, the New Englanders were, like the Virginians, foUowing Old World precedents. Nevertheless, Massachusetts appUed the principle in a more thorough fashion than Virginia, because rehgious motives had played a larger part in the Puritan migra tion. The clergy also had greater influence in New England than in any other EngUsh colony. They were generaUy men of superior education, whose advice was frequently asked for in secular as weU as in reUgious matters. Under the influence of such leaders, pubhc opinion was accustomed to the idea that the community should act together in re hgion as weU as in other respects. Only a very independent or stubborn individual could hold out against this social pressure. The place The conditions of life on the edge of the wflderness helped of the church , . . ,. . ...... . m , in the to emphasize the place of rehgion in the community. To-day community, ^e church as an educational and social agency has many competitors — newspapers, periodicals, places of public amusement, and an infinite variety of social organizations. PracticaUy none of these things existed in the early years of the Massachusetts colony. The church was the central institution in each town for inteUeetual stimulus and social intercourse, as weU as for reUgious worship. Such a system, intensified for many by the hardships and dangers which surrounded them, worked both for good and for evU. In the best men and women, it developed a strong spirit of ideaUsm, a high sense of pubUc and private duty; even such people, however, did not escape a common tendency toward intolerance and morbid types of reUgious feeling. Education. For the perpetuation of its ideals, every community must depend largely upon its schools. In this work church and state were both deeply interested, and provision for EDUCATION IN MASSACHUSETTS 109 public education was made almost immediately. A coUege was estabUshed in 1636 by vote of the General Court, prin- cipaUy for the purpose of training ministers to continue the Harvard work of those who had been educated in the EngUsh uni- ^'k^- versities. Shortly afterwards, John Harvard, a young minis ter, died, leaving a considerable gift to the coUege, which was thenceforth caUed by his name. Before long it began to turn out influential leaders of the community, in civU Ufe as weU as in the church. During the same decade, ele- Elementary mentary schools were estabUshed in various places. The scbooIs- towns commonly helped to support them by grants of land and otherwise; but the meager salary of the schoolmaster had to be supplemented by fees from the parents of his pupils. His status was often quite modest; in one case he was obhged to combine his school duties with the care of the town herd. In 1649, the colony tried to estabUsh a general system of education by requiring every town of fifty householders to support an elementary school; a town with one hundred householders was to maintain a grammar school where boys could be prepared for coUege. A town which faUed to ob serve this law was subject to a fine. Undoubtedly the act was not fuUy enforced, but it does at least express the ideals of the colony. In almost every phase of this early Massachusetts his- Practical tory, the dominant note was "self-determination." The S the6 home6 Puritan colonists were Englishmen with a real attachment sovemment. to certain EngUsh ideas of civil Uberty; but they had their special point of view and they were determined to solve their own problems in their own way, whether those problems related to commerce, poUtics, reUgion, or education. This independent position was, however, seriously threatened almost from the beginning. As early as 1634, when the Puri tan migration had become so large as to cause anxiety in England, Charles I appointed a commission consisting of Archbishop Laud and other important dignitaries, giving no NEW ENGLAND PIONEERS Dissent. them a general authority over the colonies in America. Gorges, also, kept up a constant fire of hostile criticism. FinaUy the EngUsh government sent over an order for the surrender of the charter. This was an anxious time; the ministers were consulted and favored resisting any "general governor" who might be sent from England. Fortunately the troubles at home became so serious that the King and his advisers had httle time for American affairs. So for half a century this Puritan experiment in government was carried on with very Uttle interference. The enemies of this Bible Commonwealth were not aU on the opposite side of the water. The dissenting spirit which brought the Puritans to Massachusetts could not be kept within the limits set by a smaU ruling class. Almost immediately there appeared individuals and groups of people who carried their dissent farther still, so far in fact that they in turn became exUes and founders of new colonies in which they were able to develop more freely their own theories. General accounts. Puritanism in the Old World. The Pilgrims. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES Andrews, C. M., Fathers of New England, chs. I, II, IV. Channing, United States, I, chs. X-XII. Eggleston, Beginners of a Nation, bk. II. Fiske, J., Beginnings of New England, 50-114. Adams, J. T., Founding of New England, chs. I-VTI. Palfrey, J. G., History of New England (too detaUed for most readers). Cheyney, E. P., European Background, ch. XII. Cambridge Modern History, II, 342-376. Walker, W., Calvin, especiaUy chs. XIV, XV. Gardiner, S. R., Puritan Revolution, 1-6, chs. W, V. (His History of England, 1603-1642, is useful for refer ence; see especiaUy I, 16-41.) Becker, C, Beginnings of the American People, 80-100 (suggestive). Winsor, America, III, ch. VIII. Dexter, M., Story of the Pil grims. Dexter, H. M., and M., England and Holland of the PU grims. Brown, J., Pilgrim Fathers (sympathetic EngUsh account). Usher, R. G., The Pilgrims and Their History. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES IIt Bradford, W., Plymouth Plantation (various editions). Ar- Sources. ber, E., Story of the Pilgrim Fathers. Masefield, J., Chronicles of the Pilgrim Fathers {Everyman Library). Hart, Contemporaries, I, nos. 97-103. Macdonald, Select Charters, no. 5 (Mayflower Compact). Adams, C. F., Three Episodes of Massachusetts History, I. Massachu- Ellis, G. E., Puritan Age and Rule in Massachusetts Bay, chs. I-VII. setts Bay' Winsor, J., Memorial History of Boston, I, Colonial Period, chs. I, II, XVI, XVIII. TwitcheU, J. H., John Winthrop. Hart, Contemporaries, I, nos. 105-110. Macdonald, Select Massachu- Charters, nos. 8, 17. Winthrop, J., History of New England seitssom<:e^ (editions by Savage and Hosmer). Winthrop, R. C, Life and Letters of John Winthrop. Winthrop's "Little Speech" in History (Hosmer edition), II, 237-239; in Life and Letters, II, 339-342; and in Old South Leaflets, no. 66. Johnson, Wonder-Working Providence (edited by J. F. Jameson). Weeden, W. B., History of New England, I, especially chs. Economic I-V. Brigham, A. P., Geographic Influences in American History, factors- ch. II. Osgood, American Colonies, I, pt. II, especially chs. I-III. Political Adams, C. F., and others, "Genesis of the New England Town" fostitutioM. (Mass. Hist. Soc, Proceedings, 1892). Walker, G. L., Some Aspects of the Religious Life of New Eng- Religion and land, ch. I. Walker, W., Congregational Churches, chs. LTV, VII. Earle, A. M., Sabbath in Puritan New England and her Margaret Winthrop. Hutchinson, T., History of Massachusetts, I, ch. IV. Wright, T. G., Literary Culture in Colonial New England. culture. CHAPTER VI THE PURITAN COMMONWEALTHS, 1635 TO 1676 Roger The reUgious controversies which embittered the early Williams. history of Massachusetts have perhaps had more attention than they deserve. Most of the issues then debated have lost interest except for speciaUsts, and few of the men who fought over them can claim any conspicuous place in his tory. One notable exception to this statement is Roger Williams, who illustrates admirably the spirit of thorough going individuahsm in early American life. Though on the whole kindly and generous, he was not easy to get on with. He had not been long in Massachusetts before he began to promulgate certain ideas which disturbed the colonial authorities. Some of these views were of a kind to make trouble for the colony with the EngUsh government, as, for instance, when he denied the right of the King to give legal titles to Indian lands; or when, taking the extreme Separatist position, he insisted that the Church of England was so corrupt that every good Christian ought to repent of ever having been a member of it. When the Boston church refused to accept this latter theory Williams refused to associate himseff with it. The Puritans generaUy disliked the use of the cross as a reUgious symbol; but when one of their leaders, apparently under Williams's influence, cut this emblem out of the royal ensign they felt that this was going too far. There were plenty of enemies in England who would be only too glad to make capital out of such oc currences. From a modern standpoint, Williams was putting too much ROGER WILLIAMS 1 13 energy into small disputes but he did identify himself with one Williams's reaUy big issue. Though himseff a man of intense and often au'ack-on Lite union narrow convictions, he made up his mind that religious errors of "^ch must be fought exclusively with spiritual or inteUeetual weapons. The use of governmental authority to enforce a man's reUgious obUgations he condemned as contrary both to reason and to Christian teaching. The magistrate, he said, or in modern language the state, had a right to pun ish men's offenses against each other, but duties toward God must be left to the individual conscience. ' Unfortunately, the real importance of this issue was clouded by applying it to a matter in which practical considerations even now seem to most men more important than theory. He in sisted, among other things, that the state had no right to require an oath because it was essentiaUy a reUgious act. Whatever may be thought about this particular detaU, the fact remains that WilUams had started an irrepressi ble conflict. If he was right in saying that the state had nothing to do with rehgion, then the whole Massachu setts idea of a Bible Commonwealth was wrong. It is hardly strange, then, that the Massachusetts authorities took up the gauntlet which WiUiams had thrown down. In 1635 the General Court ordered his expulsion, and in the fol- Banishment lowing winter he left Massachusetts to begin a new settlement at the head of Narragansett Bay. WUUams was hardly disposed of before another eccle- Anne siastical storm came up, and this time the leading figure Hutchmson- was a woman, Anne Hutchinson. In his journal for 1636 John Winthrop makes the foUowing entry: "One Mrs. Hutchinson, a woman of a ready wit and a bold spirit, brought over with her two dangerous errors. . . . From these The Anti- two grew many branches." It is hardly possible and perhaps nomians- not important now to state exactly what Mrs. Hutchinson's theological opinions were. The essential fact is that she took an active interest in criticizing some of the ministers, main- 114 THE PURITAN COMMONWEALTHS, 1635-1676 Banishmentof the Anti- nomians. Otherdissenters. taming that they laid too much stress on good works, rather than on divine grace. Many conservatives thought they found in Mrs. Hutchinson's doctrine traces of the ancient heresy that a truly reUgious person need pay no attention to the moral law. She and her associates, though probably gmltless of this particular offense, were therefore branded as Antinomians, and nearly aU the ministers and church mem bers were drawn into the controversy on one side or the other. Among those who, for a time at least, showed more or less sympathy with Mrs. Hutchinson were John Cotton and young Henry Vane, son of a weU-known EngUsh official and himself destined to become one of the leaders in the Puritan Revolution. Vane, who had been only a few months in the colony, made such a deep impression that he was promptly chosen governor and held that office whUe the Hutchinson controversy was at its height. In the hope of settling the matter, the churches of the colony held a synod, which con demned a number of doctrines held, or supposed to be held, by the Antinomians. In the midst of this excitement there was an election in which the conservatives were victorious, and Winthrop once more became governor. Anne Hutchin son was now tried before the General Court, which was much disturbed by her claim to have had a direct revelation from the Holy Spirit. Convinced that she was a dangerous char acter, the Court sent her also into exUe. With her went, under compulsion or voluntarily, many of her foUowers. The same pohcy of repressing dissenters was foUowed consistently during the next two decades. The teaching of certain Baptist doctrines was made a penal offense and in 1646 an attempt to induce the EngUsh ParUament, then dominated by the Presbyterians, to support that form of Puritanism in Massachusetts was promptly suppressed. The signers of a petition to this effect were brought into court and fined. The most tragic episode, however, in this whole period was the persecution of the Quakers. THE QUAKERS I 15 The Society of Friends, better known as the Quakers, The Quakers. seemed to most men at that time almost the last word in reUgious radicaUsm. As against the Roman Cathohcs and many of the AngUcans, who emphasized the authority of the church in matters of faith, and the thoroughgoing Prot estants who regarded the Bible as their ultimate authority, the Quakers declared that the final court of appeal was the individual conscience enUghtened by the Holy Spirit. The Quakers also considered unnecessary the sacraments of the church, even baptism and the Lord's Supper, which were accepted in some form by practicaUy aU other Christians. To these radicals, CathoUc priests and Puritan ministers were alike "hirelings." Instead of formal services conducted by a salaried clergy, they had only simple meetings of be- Uevers, at which each man or woman spoke as the Spirit moved. To most men of that generation this teaching seemed quite anarchistic, and the violent language used by some of the Quaker preachers intensified this feeling. Though most of them meant to be and were law-abiding citizens, some of their doctrines and practices seemed to show lack of respect for constituted authority. They rejected con ventional forms of courtesy Uke removing the hat, objected to oaths even in court, and refused mUitary service. Almost everywhere Quakerism was regarded as a perni- Persecution cious infection and its adherents were severely persecuted. Quakers. Nowhere, however, was their treatment so drastic as in Massa chusetts. When two Quaker women arrived at Boston in 1656, they were dealt with somewhat as modern health authori ties would deal with contagious diseases. The obnoxious visitors were isolated and as soon as possible deported. During the next two years three laws were made in the hope of stopping this "Quaker invasion." The last and harshest of aU provided that Quakers who persistently returned after being deported should be hanged. Doubtless the advocates of this law believed that the death penalty would never have Ii6 THE PURITAN COMMONWEALTHS, 1635-1676 The theory of persecution. The new Puritancolonies. to be apphed. Some of the Quakers, however, now considered it more than ever their duty to return in order to testify against the iniquity of their persecutors, and four of them, three men and one woman, were actuaUy hanged. Such harshness naturaUy caused a reaction and the death penalty was given up; but that did not end the persecution. In 1661, the General Court, having expressed its desire to be as "lenient" as possible, indicated the prevailing idea of leniency by ordering that anyone found to be a Quaker should be tied to a cart's taU, and whipped from town to town until he was out of the jurisdiction of the colony. It is not for the historian to defend or paUiate measures of this kind. AU he can do is to explain how they came about and relate them to the prevailing standards of the time. The Puritans beUeved that they were working out an experiment of great importance to mankind and, there fore, had a right to keep their particular corner of the world exclusively for those who would cooperate in this great ad venture. Unquestionably the Puritans were intolerant and cruel; but they Uved in an age when only a handful of ad vanced thinkers anywhere beUeved that rehgion could safely be left to the individual conscience, and when even petty offenses were punished in the most barbarous fashion. So in New England, as in old England, those who could not find comfortable places for themselves in the existing social order became in their turn exUes and founders of new commonwealths. For the most part, however, the dif ferences of the Puritans among themselves were less radical than those which separated them aU from the party of King Charles and Archbishop Laud. To a large extent, there fore, the social and poUtical institutions of the later New England colonies foUowed the Massachusetts model. Of these later Puritan colonies, there were three distinct groups. Those of the first group, settled at various points in and about Narragansett Bay, were finaUy combined in the col- THE NARRAGANSETT COLONIES 1 17 ony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. About the same time the two colonies of Connecticut and New Haven were planted on the Connecticut River and on the shore of Long Island Sound. FinaUy, in Maine and New Hampshire, Puritan emigrants from Massachusetts invaded territory claimed by the two non-Puritan promoters, Gorges and Mason, becoming, in time, the dominant element in the population. The last of these three groups proved to be of minor importance in the colonial era. By 1643 the New Hampshire towns had been graduaUy absorbed by Massa chusetts, and a few yeajs later the same aggressive colony annexed the scattered settlements in Maine. The founders of the first group were mainly dissenters Narragansett from Massachusetts; it was these Narragansett settlements, therefore, which departed most radicaUy from the Massa chusetts model. SmaU as Rhode Island is, this httle col ony was formed by the union of four distinct units. The first was Roger WiUiams's own colony of Providence at Providence. the head of Narragansett Bay. Here, he and his associates bought land from the natives and presently adopted a "plantation covenant" agreeing to abide by the wiU of the majority, but "only in civU things." Even in secular mat ters, government was reduced to its lowest terms. This rudimentary government had, of course, no legal authority which anyone either in England or America was bound to respect. The second and third of these political atoms came out of the Antinomian troubles in Massachusetts. A number of Anne Hutchinson's foUowers took refuge Portsmouth. on the island in Narragansett Bay then caUed Aquidneck, but better known as Rhode Island. The first settlers or ganized at Portsmouth a government which, notwithstand ing their difficulties in Massachusetts, was strongly Puri tan in spirit. FoUowing Biblical precedents, they caUed their elected officers, judge Ind elders rather than gov ernor and assistants. The same vigorous individualism Il8 THE PURITAN COMMONWEALTHS, 1635-1676 Newport. Warwick. The move ment toward union. which had exfled them from the "Bay" soon made trouble in their new home, and presently the island settlement spUt into two independent units, one at Portsmouth and the other at Newport, near the southern end of the island. The fourth of the Narragansett colonies was founded by an able, picturesque, and combative person by the name of Samuel Gorton. Gorton had strong reUgious convic tions and expressed them after the fashion of his time with more vigor than tact. Having hved at one time or another in Massachusetts, Plymouth, and the Antinomian settlement at Portsmouth, he was nearly everywhere at odds with his neighbors; even Roger WUUams was unwilling to have him as a feUow colonist. So he also sought freedom in a new colony on the western shore of Narragansett Bay, to which he later gave the name of Warwick in honor of the great Puritan promoter. With aU their differences the Narragansett settlements had much in common. Their governments were aU re pubUcan; they were aU at first without legal title either for their lands or their governments; and they were aU in constant fear of being absorbed by their stronger neigh bors, who considered them little better than anarchists. Under these circumstances they soon realized that individ ualism might easUy be carried so far as to defeat its own objects. Unless they could bring themselves to some work able compromise between Uberty and union, they were likely to lose their independence altogether. So the poUtical atoms graduaUy began to unite. In 1640, the two island settlements were combined in what its founders caUed a "democrat or popular government." After the outbreak of the Civfl War in England, Roger WUUams went over for a confer ence with the Puritan parliamentary government; and in 1644, he secured a document authorizing the Narragansett settlers to organize a general government. On the strength of this parliamentary patent, representatives from the RHODE ISLAND 1 19 various towns came together in 1647 and organized a kind The Union of federal union. The new government was to be repub- of l647- lican; the president and the assistants, as weU as the rep resentatives of the towns in the assembly, were to be elected annuaUy. So far, the poUtical system was not un like those of Plymouth and Massachusetts; but at two points the Rhode Islanders took an independent course. The rights of the towns were jealously guarded, and acts of the colonial assembly had to be submitted to a kind of referendum in each community. More notable stiU was the separation of church and state. No church-membership qualification was required for voters and every man was to be protected in the "peaceful and quiet enjoyment of law- fuU right and liberty," "notwithstanding our different con sciences touching the truth as it is in Jesus." Unfortunately the new constitution did not end the troubles of the young colony. In 1651 the union was tem porarily broken up and though it was reorganized in 1654, the next few years were an anxious period in Rhode Island history. Its territory was stiU claimed by neighboring Rhode colonies and the Restoration government of Charles H p^^ could hardly be expected to recognize a patent issued by Plantations. the rebellious Long Parliament. Once more, however, the Rhode Islanders found a skillful agent to represent them in England, and in 1663 they secured their first royal charter. Under this constitution, whose legaUty no one could question, the qualified voters were enabled to carry on a practically The charter repubUcan government, closely resembling that of Mas sachusetts. Though in general the laws of the colony had to conform to those of England, there was an exception in favor of religious Uberty. The charter declared that Religious no persons should be "any wise molested, punished, dis quieted, or caUed in question for any differences in opinion in matters of reUgion," provided he did not disturb the "civU peace." Fortunately, Roger WUUams, the hot-headed 120 THE PURITAN COMMONWEALTHS, 1635-1676 The found ing of Connecticut. Thomas Hooker. young radical of 1635, was stiU Hving to see his prin ciple of "soul Uberty" incorporated in the constitutional law of an American commonwealth. A few years earUer, when the Quakers visited Rhode Island, WUUams's fidehty to this ideal had been severely tested. No one could use stronger language in denunciation of the Quakers than he did; but when asked to cooperate with other colonies in measures of persecution, Rhode Island under his leadership steadUy refused. The founding of Connecticut and New Haven is quite another story in which reUgious differences were less impor tant. Less than five years after the founding of Massa chusetts Bay, some of its people discovered that in the Connecticut vaUey the land was more productive than any in the neighborhood of Boston. This region was already known to the Dutch, who came in from the Hudson vaUey and estabUshed their "House of Hope" near the present site of Hartford; there were also a few EngUsh pioneers from Plymouth. These facts did not, however, prevent conflicting plans being made in Massachusetts, where the Dutch were regarded as mere intruders on land properly belonging to the EngUsh. Besides the economic motive for emigration there was a certain amount of political and social discontent. The chief promoters of the new project were Thomas Hooker, minister of the church at Newtown, now Cambridge, and John Haynes, an influential leader who had served one term as governor of Massachusetts. Hooker was of course some what hberal in his views and dissatisfied with the group of men who controUed the poUcies of Massachusetts; but he was obviously not a radical of the Roger WUUams type. It is certainly difficult to regard Haynes as a very progressive person, since he was ready to criticize Winthrop for being too lenient. These founders of Connecticut were not exiles; the Massachusetts government at first refused them per mission to emigrate and finaUy gave its consent reluctantly. CONNECTICUT 121 In 1635 the emigration began in earnest and before long Connecticut members of three Puritan congregations near Boston had towns. found new homes on the Connecticut. By 1636 there were about 800 settlers in the three river towns of Hart ford, Wethersfield, and Windsor; a few mUes to the north was another pioneer settlement at Springfield, which later turned out to be within the jurisdiction of Massachusetts. These newcomers crowded out the earUer settlers from Plymouth, and though they did not quite venture to expel the Dutch, they took up land close to the "House of Hope." Like the first settlers of Plymouth and Rhode Island, the Connecticut pioneers were squatters with no legal title to hold land or carry on a government. At the mouth of the Connecticut, there was the post of Saybrook, estabhshed by John Winthrop, Jr., son of the Massachusetts governor, under a grant made by the CouncU for New England to some of its Puritan members. An understanding was, how ever, reached between these rival interests, which aUowed the colonists up the river to develop their settlements with out interference. In 1639 representatives from the river towns met at TheFunda- Hartford and formed a constitution caUed the Fundamental orders. Orders. This government also foUowed the Massachusetts model, with governor, deputy governor, and assistants aU chosen annuaUy by the freemen. The differences, which were not very important, are interesting chiefly as showing a desire to prevent the officers of the colony from gaining too much power; the governor, for instance, was not aUowed to serve two years in succession. Evidently the framers of this constitution had no fundamental objec tion to the union of church and state; they declared, indeed, that it was one of their chief objects to preserve "the dis cipline of the Churches, which according to the truth of the said Gospel is now practised amongst us." In other words, the state was expected to maintain the Puritan system. The 122 THE PURITAN COMMONWEALTHS, 1635-1676 Growth of the colony. Niw Haven. governor was required to be a member of some approved congregation, and though no general law required that voters should be church members, most of the towns probably did not admit as "freemen" and voters persons who were not in sympathy with the reUgious aims set forth in the constitution. Under this government the colony grew and prospered; new towns were planted along the river and east ward toward Narragansett Bay. The Dutch in the Hudson vaUey were much impressed by the success of the English, contrasting it with the slow progress of New Netherland. Against possible attacks from that quarter, the Connecti cut farmers depended partly on the EngUsh fort at the mouth of the river; but their best protection was a rapid growth in population with which the Dutch could not compete. Connecticut was hardly estabUshed before New England Puritanism set its stakes still farther westward on Long Island Sound, at New Haven. The promoters of this colony were weU-to-do London Puritans, led by their minister, John Davenport, and an influential merchant named The- ophUus Eaton. They came to Massachusetts in 1637, and, being thoroughly orthodox Puritans, were urged to stay in Massachusetts. They had more ambitious plans, however, and presently moved to New Haven, which they hoped to make an important trading center. They also proposed to make this new colony an even more thorough going Bible Commonwealth than Massachusetts. Their hope of commercial development on a large scale was dis appointed; but during the next six years, they succeeded in estabhshing another Uttle Puritan repubhc which fi naUy included, besides New Haven, several other towns, extending westward along the Sound almost as far as the present eastern boundary of New York. For almost twenty-five years, Connecticut and New Haven continued as separate colonies. Though quite agreed THE PEQUOT WAR 1 23 on the fundamental tenets of Puritanism, they were not altogether congenial and the New Haven people prided themselves on the peculiar strictness of their church system. Both colonies were, however, at a disadvantage because they had no royal charter and therefore no legal security against outside interference. So long as the Puritan party kept control in England, they were fairly safe; but when the Stuart monarchy came back under Charles II, the Con necticut people, especiaUy, were anxious for royal recog nition. Through the skillful management of John Winthrop, Union of Jr., who had been governor of Connecticut for several years, and^New0"1* a royal charter was secured in 1662 . Connecticut and New Haven. The tt 11 1 charter of Haven, the latter much agamst its wiU, were now com- 1662. bined in a single colony. As in Rhode Island, poUtical power was placed almost completely in the hands of the quah- fied voters; the charter proved so satisfactory to the people who Uved under it that they used it as their state constitu tion for more than forty years after the Declaration of Independence. The westward movement of the New Englanders into The Pequot the Connecticut vaUey brought the first serious conflict ar' in this region between the whites and the Indians. The tribes most seriously disturbed by this white invasion were the Pe- quots, who, living in the eastern part of the present state of Connecticut, were hemmed in between the Narragansetts on the east and the Mohegans on the west. The trouble began with the usual misunderstandings between the races, foUowed by Indian attacks upon individual settlers, and finaUy by a real war. For a time the Connecticut frontiers men were in grave danger, isolated as they were from the older settlements in Massachusetts; but they soon organized an effective defense and before long received reenforce- ments from Massachusetts and from the friendly Indians, so that they could take the offensive. By 1637 the Pequots were completely crushed. Unfortunately the record was 124 THE PURITAN COMMONWEALTHS, 1635-1676 stained by wholesale slaughter and enslavement of the Indians, including many women and chUdren. Results of Within twenty-five years after the founding of the enterprise. PUgrim colony at Plymouth, the Puritan colonists had pre empted nearly the whole New England seaboard from the Maine-New Hampshire border almost to the present sub urban area of the City of New York. Here for about haU a century they were almost entirely free to carry out their reUgious, economic, and poUtical experiments. Be fore this period of practical independence came to an end, the ideas of the Puritan founders were so thoroughly im pressed on New England society that they persisted with surprisingly Httle change through aU the vicissitudes of the next hundredj'years. This was in itself a great achievement, but it is not the whole story of Puritan enterprise, for it leaves out of account the aggressive Puritan minorities which made their influence felt in the Dutch territory of New Netherland, in the Chesapeake colonies, and even in the West Indies. New Notwithstanding this remarkable record of expansion, and the Eng- the New England horizon was not altogether unclouded. monweaWi ^e growmg power of the Puritans in old England checked immigration and there was even some backward flow to the mother country. This falling off in immigration checked also the flow of capital into the colony, and severe financial depression led many to talk of deserting the enterprise. During the EngUsh Civil War, the New Englanders naturally sympathized with the parhamentary party as against the King; but their principal desire was to be let alone and they could never be quite sure about the final outcome. As they said later, it was their poUcy "only to act a passive part throughout these late vicissitudes and successive overturn- ings of state." The Indian The Indians were another source of anxiety. The settlers pro em. ^ad generaUy tried to be fair, usuaUy paying the Indians NEW ENGLAND CONFEDERATION 125 for their land and trying to settle justly the inevitable dis putes between individuals of the two races. Some progress was also made in missionary work, especially by the Massachusetts minister, John EUot. Yet there were also many acts of injustice, some quite inexcusable but others due to the fact that neither race could quite under stand the other. So the danger of Indian uprisings could never be forgotten and even the short Pequot War showed how hard it was to get the scattered colonies to act to gether when a crisis did arise. There were white neighbors, French too, who were not friendly. Along the Maine coast, New neighbors. Englanders competed with Frenchmen for the Indian trade; and in 1643 the Massachusetts authorities were more or or less involved in a conflict between two rival French leaders in Acadia. The Dutch in New Netherland did not enjoy the westward expansion of New England, which was steadUy going forward with Httle regard for their feehngs. These conflicting claims might weU lead to war. Doubtless some New Englanders could remember the massacre of Amboina in the Spice Islands of the East Indies, which showed that the Dutch could sometimes strike hard and ruthlessly in defending their commercial interests against English competi tion. Even within the Puritan circle, everything did not go quite smoothly. Massachusetts quarreled with Plymouth about boundaries and Indian trade, whUe the radicals of Narragansett Bay were disliked by nearly aU their neighbors. All these difficulties emphasized the need of cooperation. On the whole, too, the interests which divided the New Englanders were less fundamental than those which drew New Eng- 0 ... j. , land con- them together. They had a common inheritance of language federation. and of law; they had aU worked out practicaUy repub Ucan forms of government; and most of them agreed on the fundamental Puritan ideas of reUgion and church govern ment. The idea of forming a federation first came up in 1637, the year of the Pequot War, and was discussed at 126 THE' PURITAN COMMONWEALTHS, 1635-1676 intervals for the next six years. At last, the leaders were ready to act and in 1643 they organized the United Colonies of New England with four members: Massachusetts, Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven. The unpopular radicals of Narragansett Bay were left out and also the struggling Maine villages, soon to be absorbed by Massa chusetts. In the articles of union stress was laid on the common reUgious interests which the new federation was to promote; but the spirit of independence was scarcely less strong and the federation was, therefore, organized on a "state rights" basis. The management of its business was entrusted to eight commissioners, the Httle colonies of Plymouth and New Haven receiving exactly the same representation as Massachusetts, which had a larger pop ulation than aU the others combined. Each colony was also guaranteed complete independence except for the very few matters entrusted to the confederation, which was organized primarily for miHtary defense. Among other matters provided for in the articles were the extradition of criminals and of fugitive servants and a plan for the settle ment of intercolonial disputes. Working The confederation had a short and troubled career. of the con- UsuaUy the commissioners were content to make recom- federation. . mendations to the various colonial governments. They recommended, for instance, legislation requiring each man to keep himself supplied with arms; also that the judi cial proceedings of one colony should receive fuU recogni tion by all the others, thus anticipating a familiar clause in the present Constitution of the United States. From time to time they discussed Indian affairs, deciding on one occa sion that the Mohegan chieftain, Uncas, might lawfuUy put to death a captive Narragansett chief. The Dutch furnished another series of problems. In 1643, John Win throp, the first president of the confederation, was instructed to demand satisfaction for damage done to EngUsh traders FEDERAL PROBLEMS 1 27 in the Delaware vaUey by the Dutch and the Swedes. Ten years later, however, when Connecticut and New Haven were eager'for war against the Dutch, Massachusetts, which would have had to make the heaviest contribution in men and money, strongly opposed the proposition and when out voted refused to cooperate. This was not the first case of this kind. A few years before, after it was regularly decided that Connecticut had the right to levy a tax on goods coming down the river from Massachusetts, that gov ernment held out against it and voted a retaliatory tax against the other members of the union. There was a stiU more serious breach of the constitution when, in 1662, New Haven was annexed to Connecticut notwithstanding a clause in the articles guaranteeing the independence of every member of the league. The confederation had now about outfived its usefulness, though in 1675 it helped to put down the formidable Indian uprising known as King PhUip's War. Compared with modern federal governments, the New England confederation was a feeble affair; nevertheless it may fairly claim an honorable place in the series of American experiments out of which has come the most successful federation in history. The "golden age" of New England Puritanism ended with the passing of the first generation of colonists. By 1660 Winthrop and Cotton, the most trusted leaders in the state and in the church, and many of their associates were gone; their places were now taken by younger and usuaUy smaUer men. It was also becoming more difficult for the New Englanders to keep their independent position. The f aU of the Commonwealth in England and the restor- New Eng-^ ation of the Stuarts meant that the British government was home gov- passing into the hands of men who were not at aU friendly emmen to the Puritan communities across the sea. This dislike was increased when some of the "regicides," who were respon sible for the execution of Charles I, found refuge in New 128 THE PURITAN COMMONWEALTHS, 1635-1676 England. The Massachusetts authorities tried to ward off the danger by sending over extremely poUte, not to say effusive, letters protesting their loyalty to the King but quite firmly insisting on their right to manage their own affairs. When the King demanded that property holders should be aUowed to vote, whether they were church members or not, the Massachusetts General Court compHed formaUy with this requirement, but practicaUy left the matter much as it was before. In 1664, when the EngUsh government sent over commissioners to investigate, the Massachusetts people, particularly, obstructed their proceedings as much as they could. These incidents convinced the EngUsh officials that the aims of Massachusetts were quite inconsistent with its obHgations to the home government. The friction became more serious when Parliament passed a series of acts regulating colonial trade, only to find that the elected governors of New England could not be trusted to enforce them. For a time, Massachusetts was able to prevent effective intervention, but the authorities at home were getting more and more exasperated. Before many years the colony was forcibly reminded that it was still a part of the EngUsh dominions and must adjust its theories and practices to that fact. pjyjf ,g WhUe these clouds were gathering on the poUtical ho- War. rizon, the New Englanders had to pass through the most serious of aU their Indian troubles. "King PhiHp's War" was a natural result of the steady pressure of colonial pop ulation upon the Indian country. There was constant fric tion and the Indians were often unjustly treated. In 1675 the rising discontent of the savages found a leader in "King Phifip," the son of a chief, Massasoit, who had long kept the peace between his own people and their EngUsh neighbors. The serious fighting lasted until the summer of 1676, when King PhiHp was kiUed. The final victory of the English was inevitable, but before it came the war had KING PHILIP'S WAR 1 29 taken a fearful toU in life and property. At one time or an other nearly half the settled towns were attacked and seriously injured; several were totaUy destroyed. It was a tragic experience whose depressing influence was felt for many years. For the student of history, however, the war is important chiefly because it was the last serious chal lenge offered by the Indians to the white occupation of New England. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES Andrews, Fathers of New England, chs. Ill, V-VIII. Becker, General Beginnings of the American People, 100-124. Channing, United States, I, 3S6-437, 485-495; II, 65-70. Eggleston, Beginners of a Nation, bk. Ill, chs. II, III. Adams, Founding of New Eng land, chs. VTH-XIV. Macdonald, Select Charters, nos. 14, 16, 18, 19, 24, 27. Hart, Collected Contemporaries, I, nos. 108, 112; chs. XVII-XXI. souic.es. EUis, G. E., Puritan Age in Massachusetts, chs. VIII-XII. Massachu- Adams, B., Emancipation of Massachusetts, chs. II-V. Adams, ^"^ C. F., Massachusetts, Its Historians and Its History, 1-64, and senters. his Three Episodes of Massachusetts History, I, 362-532; II, S33~578- (Tne Adamses are sharply critical of the Puritans.) Jones, R. M., Quakers in the American Colonies, I, chs. I-V. Straus, O. S., Roger Williams (sympathetic); Dexter, H. M., ^cawdn- As to Roger Williams (critical). Seccombe, T., "Roger Williams" Rhode*"1 in Dictionary of National Biography. Writings of Williams in Islalld- Narragansett Club, Publications. Richman, I. B., Rhode Island {Commonwealth Series), pt. I, and his Rhode Island, Its Making and Meaning. Andrews, C. M., River Towns of Connecticut {Johns Hopkins Connecticut. Studies, VII). Walker, G. L., Thomas Hooker. Osgood, American Colonies, I, pt. II, ch. X. Articles in Mac- New Eng- donald, Select Charters, no. 19; also in Hart and Channing, Ameri- federation. can History Leaflets, no. 7. Lincoln, C. H., Narratives of the Indian Wars, 7-167. |£g Philip's CHAPTER VH EXPANSION AND CONQUEST The English The first half century of Enghsh colonization closed' colonies in ^^ ^^ g,.0UpS 0f settlements securely estabhshed in the New World. Farthest south were the island planta tions of the West Indies, — Barbados, the Leeward Islands, and, by conquest just at the end of this period, the Spanish colony of Jamaica. Next came the tobacco-planting colo nies of Chesapeake Bay; and, finaUy, with another long interval, the self-governing Puritan commonwealths of New England. Leaving Jamaica out of account for a mo ment, aU these colonies had certain common character istics. AU were the result of real colonization, the. taking up of land not previously occupied by Europeans. In the island colonies and to a sUght extent on Chesapeake Bay, negro slaves had been brought in; otherwise the popula tion was almost exclusively Enghsh. In the two southern groups, except for a short time during the EngUsh Puritan Revolution, estabUshed institutions and prevailing ideals foUowed closely those of the mother country. In each of these httle dependent states, there was a governor rep resenting the monarchical principle but also an assembly claiming the privfleges of the EngUsh House of Commons. Justices of the peace and vestrymen regulated the affairs of lesser people much as they did in England. These people were also, for the most part, content with the reUgious system to which they had been accustomed in the old home. Except in Maryland, they believed that God Almighty should be "devoutly and duly served", in the orthodox AngUcan 130 THE RESTORATION ERA 131 manner. With the New Englanders, it was somewhat dif ferent. They, too, were EngUshmen and clung to many of the old EngUsh ways; they also had their representative assembhes, their justices and constables, and their estab Ushed churches which everybody had to support. They were EngUshmen, however, of a special kind with some ideas op posed to those which finaUy prevaUed at home. Left much more to themselves than the southern colonies, they became practicaUy repubUcan, and they preferred to serve God in a different fashion from that approved by EngUsh law and custom. The second half century of the colonial era has a different New story to teU. There were stUl settlements on virgin sofl, ^lonlktion. but much of the newly occupied territory was taken by con quest from European rivals. EngUshmen continued to cross the ocean, but in nearly aU the new provinces they were soon Uving side by side with men of other nationaUties; into the south the African negroes came in ever increasing numbers. Foreign elements and poUtical experimentation brought new variations from the EngUsh standard; the forces which were finaUy to create a new and different national type were already at work. The background for aU these new phases of colonial The era expansion is the period known in EngUsh history as the Restoration. Restoration. Strictly speaking, it begins with the accession of Charles II, but some of its most characteristic tendencies may be seen in the days of OUver CromweU. The Restora tion era has not had a particularly good name with Ameri can readers of EngUsh history. It means to them, for one thing, the breakdown of the great English experiment in repubUcan government and the return of a Stuart king who went as far as he dared in the direction of absolute monarchy. It was also a period of intolerance in re Ugious matters. Even moderate Puritan ministers were excluded from the national church, and dissenters, as weU 132 EXPANSION AND CONQUEST Constructive forces. Commerce and sea power. as Cathohcs, were persecuted in various ways. Even more familiar is the sharp reaction from Puritan morality, in which the court of Charles H undoubtedly set the worst possible example. Not the least discreditable feature of the King's pohcy was his willingness at times to sacrifice the national interest in order to secure poUtical and finan cial support from the French King. Notwithstanding these facts, the Restoration was not, on the whole, a period of decadence; it was rather one of unusual national vigor. Even the decline in rehgion and morals has been exaggerated. There were dissolute princes and courtiers; but the number of new churches buUt after the great London fire of 1666 indicates that rehgion was not dead even in the Church of England. Among the dis senters were such great leaders as John Bunyan, George Fox, and William Penn. Natural science made great gains, and the new Royal Society helped to stimulate interest in that branch of knowledge. There were great names also in phUosophy and poUtical theory — Thomas Hobbes, Al gernon Sidney, and John Locke. One subject in which think ers and business men were almost equaUy interested was economics, more particularly the problem of developing British trade and making it contribute more effectively to the national wealth. Interest in commercial expansion was not a new thing; but it was greatly stimulated after the CivU War. One of the most important elements on the side of Parliament as against the King, was the merchant class, which, after the defeat of the royaUsts, had a good chance to secure friendly legislation. The merchants were fortunate also in getting the support of CromweU; and his vigorous ad ministration did much to restore British prestige abroad. He was keenly interested in the navy, in the merchant marine, and in the expansion of EngUsh trade throughout the world. In all these matters the Restoration made less difference CROMWELL'S AMERICAN POLICY 133 than might have been expected. Many of the merchants and officials who furnished expert advice to CromweU were equaUy ready to cooperate with the King, and they con tinued to exert a strong influence upon the commercial poUcy of the government. Much is commonly said about the humiliating reverses of the royal navy at the hands of the Dutch; but the Restoration period as a whole shows a great development of the navy, and the merchant marine was doubled between 1660 and 1688. Closely connected with this enthusiasm for commercial Colonial expansion was a renewed interest in colonization as one of expansion- the best means of promoting trade. This revival also had its beginning under the Puritan Commonwealth, when England competed vigorously with other European states for trade and colonial empire. During the short five-year period of CromweU's protectorate, expeditions were organ ized against the Dutch in New Netherland, the French in Acadia, and the Spaniards in the West Indies. The first was stUl hanging fire when the home government decided to make peace with the Dutch; the second was successful and Acadia became for a few years the British province of Nova Scotia; the attack on the Spanish colonies was not whoUy successful, but Jamaica was conquered and this rich sugar-planting island became a permanent part of the British Empire. After the Restoration, many factors contributed to keep Personal alive the interest in colonial expansion. Charles II himself, Jjfee 5?^ though self-indulgent and unprincipled, was an able man family. and reaUy anxious to promote the economic welfare of his Charles n. country — partly no doubt because increasing wealth for the nation meant more money for the royal treasury. He was interested in colonies because of the profits they might bring to himself and his friends, as weU as to the nation at large. So, ignoring his previous promise to the Spaniards, he decided to keep Jamaica and when shortly afterwards 134 EXPANSION AND CONQUEST James,Duke of York. Politicians, courtiers,and mer chants. he married a Portuguese princess he secured as a part of her dowry the African post of Tangier and the city and island of Bombay, in India, one of the nuclei about which the British Indian Empire has since developed. Charles was also directly concerned in other overseas enterprises, including the African slave trade. Other members of the royal famUy had simUar interests. The King's uncle, Prince Rupert, also invested in the slave trade and took a leading part in the formation of the Hudson's Bay Company, one of the most powerful and picturesque trading monopoUes ever estabUshed in the New World. Of aU the members of the royal famUy, the most significant for American colo nial history was the King's brother James, Duke of York, afterwards King James II. As Lord High Admiral, he had a substantial part in the development of the navy, though he owed much to expert advisers like the famous diarist, Samuel Pepys. He is chiefly remembered as the founder of the EngUsh province of New York; but he also in cluded among his numerous ventures the African slave trade, the Hudson Bay fur trade, and the East India Company. Several of the King's ministers were also seriously con cerned with American affairs: the Puritan general, Monk, who as a reward for bringing the army over to the King's side was made Duke of Albemarle and Master of the King's Horse; Lord Ashley, later Earl of Shaftesbury, who began his career as a Puritan poUtician; and Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon, the King's chief adviser during his exUe and in the early years of his reign. AU three of these men became proprietors of the new province of Carolina. Both Clarendon and Ashley were strongly convinced of the importance of colonies as sources of national wealth and did what they could to impress these views upon the King. About these larger figures gathered many lesser personages — soldiers, courtiers, and adventurers — who saw in the New World RESTORATION POLICIES 135 an opportunity to mend broken fortunes or buUd new ones. FinaUy, in close touch with some of the pofiticians and court iers, were the merchants who were engaged in the American trade and had ideas about the best means of making the plantations useful to the mother country. The kind of colonization desired by these politicians Colonial and "big business men" was something quite different from ^f^ the self-sufficient commonwealths of New England. They Restoration. wanted rather plantations for the production of articles which would otherwise have to be bought from England's rivals. Since they regarded colonies primarily as a means of developing trade, they were generaUy not much interested in sending out large numbers of emigrants from England. Economists no longer talked about disposing of surplus population; on the contrary they encouraged the immigra tion of Protestant refugees from the Continent as a means of increasing the national wealth. Under these circumstances, The slave the African slave trade was naturaUy favored since it furnished labor to the plantations without drawing man power from home industries. Accordingly organizations were formed for this purpose, of which the most important was the Royal African Company of 1672. Encouraged by the home govern ment and by the increasing demand for labor in the planta tions, there was soon a great increase in the importation of negroes into the southern and insular colonies. Though the government was not anxious to encourage The new large-scale emigration, it did nevertheless give many people cooms good reasons for leaving home. The continued harsh treat ment of dissenters sent thousands of Quakers and other re ligious radicals to the older American settlements and to the new Quaker colonies of West Jersey and Pennsylvania. The Quaker colonists included a considerable number from Ireland and Wales, as weU as from England; the government itself encouraged the sending of servants from Scotland and Ireland. Besides these emigrants and the Protestant refugees 136 EXPANSION AND CONQUEST The new proprietaryprovinces. Carolina. from Europe, some desirable material for the new settle ments was drawn from the older colonies of New England, Virginia, and Barbados. The two main results of the new expansionist poUcy were the founding of Carolina, which pushed the English fron tier farther to the southward, and the conquest of the Hud son and Delaware vaUeys, which filled in the great gap between the Chesapeake colonies and New England. In this forward movement, the government stiU depended mainly on private initiative. The new colonies of the Restoration period aU began as proprietary provinces not under the direct control of the Crown. The territory of CaroUna had long been claimed by the EngUsh and much of it had been included in earUer charters. The first Virginia charter had impUed an EngUsh claim to the whole South Atlantic coast as far as the thirty- fourth paraUel; and the second Virginia charter put the southern boundary two hundred nnles south of Old Point Comfort, far enough to include a large part of what is now North Carolina. In 1630, after this charter was revoked, Charles I went stUl farther in his disregard of Spanish claims by giving to his attorney-general, Sir Robert Heath, the territory between the thirty-sixth and thirty-first paraUels, thus cutting off a slice of southern Virginia, and at the other end claiming the coast fine as far south as the present boundary of Florida. Efforts to settle this region having proved unsuccessful, Heath's charter was forfeited, and The charters in 1663 this region was given to a group of eight proprietors. Three of these grantees were the great ministers of state already mentioned, Clarendon, Ashley, and Albemarle. Then came three CavaUers, Lord Craven, Sir George Car teret, and Lord Berkeley, loyal foUowers of the King in the dark days of his exUe, who now claimed their reward. Lastly, there were two men of long experience in colonial affairs, Governor Berkeley of Virginia and Sir John CoUeton, of 1663 and 1665, CAROLINA CHARTER 137 mental provisions. a prominent planter of Barbados, whose influence with Ash ley probably had much to do with the starting of this enter prise. The territory given in the first charter was the same as that granted to Heath; but a few "squatters" from Virginia had already settled near the northern boundary and in 1665 that line was pushed up to 360 30'. With ex traordinary audacity the southern boundary was now fixed at 290, that is, south of the old Spanish settlement of St. Augustine, a claim which neither the government nor the proprietors were able to make good. The authority of the proprietors in their new province Govern was simUar to that of Lord Baltimore in Maryland. Like him, they were authorized to establish a palatinate, or feudal principaUty, almost entirely free from royal control. Both charters provided for large estates under the manorial system and for titles of nobUity. Lord Baltimore had not used this latter privUege, but the Carolina proprietors presently es tabUshed two orders of nobUity, taking the title "Land grave" from the Germans and that of "Cacique" from the Indians. The right of the people to share in the making of laws was also recognized in both charters. In the matter of reUgion, however, there was an important difference. Though Lord Baltimore had adopted a policy of toleration, he had no warrant for it in his charter. The Carolina pro prietors, on the contrary, were definitely authorized to toler ate dissenters if they saw fit. This is remarkable because some of these proprietors were members of a govern ment which was making Ufe miserable for English dis senters. In this case, as in the Rhode Island charter issued about the same time, it was explained that the colony was so far away that religious concessions there would not in terfere with uniformity at home. The motive is evident; the proprietors wished to attract settlers who could not be secured under an exclusive ecclesiastical system. The AngUcan Church was, however, recognized as the official i3» EXPANSION AND CONQUEST A planta tion colony. Northern settlements. Frontierconditions in northern Carolina. church; complete reUgious Uberty was not expected, but only toleration. What the CaroUna promoters wished to do was to es- tabUsh a plantation colony, somewhat Uke those of the West Indies. They hoped it would produce tropical or semi- tropical articles, like silk, wine, and oUve oU, which ordinarily came to England from the Mediterranean countries or the Far East. Sugar and tobacco were provided for in other colonies and need not be encouraged in Carolina. The outcome, however, was quite different from that expected. The first settlers were Virginia frontiersmen who had be gun moving south even before the proprietors set up their government. These pioneers of North Carolina led a lonely existence about the shores of Albemarle Sound, where they were cut off from their Virginia neighbors by great stretches of swamp land and where the shifting sands of the coast made access by sea difficult except to smaU vessels. Left largely to themselves at first, they raised the tobacco to which they had become accustomed in Virginia, with corn and Uve stock sufficient to meet their own requirements. Before long, however, they were sending some provisions to the West Indies. Such commerce as they had with the out side world was largely in smaU ships from New England, which exchanged manufactured goods of various kinds for tobacco and provisions. So there grew up in northern Carolina a community of self-reliant frontiersmen whom the proprietors could not easUy control. From time to time governors were sent out who, with the representatives of the colonists, passed a few laws; but in general the proprietors paid Uttle attention to this northern settlement, which from their point of view was an unprofitable affair. Attempts to restrain the settlers made trouble. In 1677, for instance, when customs officials tried to enforce EngUsh trade regulations, hitherto almost NORTHERN CAROLINA J39 whoUy ignored by the colonists and the New England trad ers, the inhabitants rose in revolt and imprisoned the unpopu lar officials. For about a year the rebels had complete control of the government. A few years later, a proprietary gov ernor was arrested by the colonists and banished. For many years, North CaroUna had a bad reputation not only with the home authorities but among its neighbors. It was supposed to be a favorite resort for undesirable characters from Virginia and for the pirate; who infested the whole Atlantic seaboard. The inhabitants were also said to have Utile regard for reUgion. Though the Church of England was officiaUy recognized in the charter, no regular services were maintained here for many years; almost the only reUgious teaching then avaflable was furnished by Quaker preachers. Probably some contemporary criticism of these settlers by unsympathetic neighbors should be discounted; they doubtless had the characteristic virtues and vices of frontier people as shown in various stages of the American westward movement. WhUe the Albemarle settlements were graduaUy de- Plans for Veloping into the colony of North CaroUna, the proprietors Carolina. were much more interested in the southern part of their province. In the development of plans for this region some of the Barbadian planters took an active interest. The growth of the large slaveholding plantations was making their island less attractive to smaU planters and white serv ants, who might, therefore, be persuaded to try the new colony. Some of these Barbadians were promised land in Carolma on favorable terms. The government was also to be Uberal, with elected assemblies and reUgious toleration. The outcome of this movement was a colony on the Cape Fear River, in what is now North Carolina; it seemed fairly prosperous for a time but later met with reverses and had to be abandoned. Six years after the first charter was issued, the proprietors had Uttle to show for aU their troubles, except 140 EXPANSION AND CONQUEST the unmanageable tobacco growers and cattlemen on Albemarle Sound. Lord Ashley. The proprietors were not discouraged, however, and for a time they had an able leader in the person of Ashley, now Earl of Shaftesbury. He was an active poUtician and, being more Uberal in his views than Clarendon, is generaUy re garded as one of the founders of the Whig party. He man aged also to find time for American affairs and the serious study of colonial problems, though some of his ideas did not stand the test of practical experience. Perhaps the most serious blunder made by the proprietors during this period was their attempt to substitute for the comparatively simple governments at first proposed an intricate scheme caUed the The Funda- Fundamental Constitutions. This document carried to Stations. D* an absurd extreme the feudal system anticipated by the charter, with a landed aristocracy occupying a place in the government simflar to that of the EngUsh House of Lords. Even in the representative house, every member had to have at least five hundred acres of land. The Fundamental Constitutions caused general dissatisfaction from the be ginning. They were repeatedly amended by the proprietors during the next thirty years, and in the end gave way to a comparatively simple system not unlike the other royal and proprietary governments. Beginnings More important than this eccentric constitution making Carolina. was ^ planting of a permanent colony in what is now South CaroUna. For several years the proprietors had been ad vertising the attractions of their province for different types of settlers. Younger sons of the EngUsh gentry were offered a chance to buUd up large estates, thus becoming the founders of a new American aristocracy. For poorer people the life of a servant in the colony was optimisticaUy described. The proprietors also counted largely on their abUity to draw people from the older colonies. The colonists further north were promised a pleasanter climate and the people of SOUTHERN CAROLINA 141 the sugar islands better opportunities for acquiring land. At last in 1669 a smaU fleet was sent out from England with instructions to stop at Barbados for additional colonists. In 1670, this company was landed on the south side of the Ashley River, just above the point where it joins the Cooper River to form Charleston harbor. Within two years this new settlement in and about Early "Charles Town" numbered about 400 people and within the P°Pulation- next ten years the population increased to about 1200. From the beginning, South Carolina had a less homogeneous Racial and population than the older colonies. Of the Englishmen, elements. some were AngUcans, but others were dissenters attracted by the promise of toleration. Ireland and New England both furnished settlers, and emigrants from the West Indies, especiaUy from Barbados, formed an influential group. Among the most interesting of the early colonists were the French Protestants, or Huguenots, whose descendants have always played a conspicuous part in the social and political life of South CaroUna. Here, as in Virginia, the early planters generaUy had white servants; but negro slaves were soon imported on a large scale and in a few years outnumbered the whites. This comparatively early estabUshment of the plantation system, on the basis of slave labor, was doubtless due in part to the example of Barbados. The economic development of South Carolina was dis- Economy appointing to the proprietors. For the first few years the colonists naturaUy had to devote most of their energies to the problem of food supply, planting corn and wheat and raising cattle and hogs. Of these products, they soon had enough to export considerable quantities to the West Indies, with which they kept up a close connection throughout the colonial era — much closer in fact than with the colonies to the northward. Some pitch, tar, lumber, and furs were exported also; but it was some years before the South Carolinians developed an important staple for the European 142 EXPANSION AND CONQUEST Importanceof Charleston. Religion. The govern ment of Carolina trade. Unlike their neighbors in North CaroUna, they had an exceUent harbor. Ten years after the colony was founded, the Charles Town settlement — later caUed Charleston — was transferred to its present beautiful site^ between the Ashley and Cooper rivers, where for about a century it was the one important seaport in aU the southern colonies. Though plantations spread along the coast, northward and southward, and up the rivers into the interior, many of the weU-to-do planters spent much of their time in Charleston, which consequently became the economic, social, and po litical center of the colony, to an extent not equaled in any other EngUsh province on the continent. The institutional Ufe of South Carolina developed in an orderly way. Provision was soon made for the services of the AngUcan Church, to which most of the influential emi grants from England and Barbados belonged. Though the Church of England had a preferred position, there was tol eration for other churches, and there were soon houses of worship for CongregationaUsts, Huguenots, and Scotch Presbyterians. The proprietors set out with the idea of a central govern ment for the whole of Carolina; but the theory could not be made to work, since the northern and southern settle ments were too far apart. During the early years, there was generaUy a governor commissioned for the whole province, who Uved at Charleston, whUe the actual government of the northern settlements, so far as there was any, was usuaUy left to a deputy governor. In each of these divisions, forms of government developed simflar to those in Maryland, though some pecuUar features of the Fundamental Constitu tions persisted for several years. In each colony, the governor or deputy governor and the councU represented the pro prietors, whUe the lower house, or "Common House of Assembly, " as it was caUed in South Carolma, represented the inhabitants. In South CaroUna the tone of social and HUDSON AND DELAWARE VALLEYS 143 poUtical Ufe was distinctly aristocratic. In North CaroUna the spirit was more democratic. The early history of South Carolina was much influenced The Angb- by its position as the southern outpost of the EngUsh empire frontier. on the American continent. From the Spanish point of view the EngUsh colonists were simply trespassers. Though the Spaniards did not then occupy any territory within the present limits of South Carolma, they kept a jealous eye on the colony and occasionaUy made trouble, as in 1686, when they destroyed an isolated Scotch settlement at Port Royal. The province was now too thoroughly estabUshed to be broken up by such attacks on outlying points; but for several decades it was kept in dread of simUar expeditions and of Spanish intrigues among the Indians. It was evident, too, that in case of a sudden attack South Carolina would have to take care of itself with Uttle help from others. More important than the extension of the EngUsh frontier The Hudson to the southward was the conquest of the Hudson and Dela- ware valleys. ware vaUeys from the Dutch. Here was a block of territory under alien control which divided the EngUsh continental colonies into two isolated sections. Within this stretch of coast line were two great waterways into the interior, on which have since developed the two richest and most popu lous cities of the Atlantic seaboard. The fuU value of the region was not, of course, recognized at the time; the Dutch had so far made only the shghtest use of the Hudson vaUey and stUl less of the Delaware country. Yet the strategic importance of the section and its possibflities for the fur trade were appreciated by the English, who denied that the Dutch had any just claim. The starting point of the EngUsh argument was the Cabot voyages, on the basis of which the middle region was included in the Virginia charter of 1606 and the New England patent of 1620. Between the last two dates, however, the Dutch Tn.e Dutch ' claim, tlenry established a counter claim, through the exploration of the Hudson. 144 EXPANSION AND CONQUEST Beginningsof coloniza tion. The Dutch West India Com pany. Hudson by the famous seaman from whom it takes its name. Henry Hudson was an EngUshman and spent most of his active life under the EngUsh flag; but at this moment in his career he was a captain in the employ of the Dutch East India Company, which had engaged him to find a passage from Europe to China through the northern seas, in order to circumvent the Portuguese, who were stiU trying to monopolize the southern route around the Cape of Good Hope. One such attempt having faUed, Hudson tried to find a passage through North America at about the fortieth paraUel. So it came about that in 1609 he entered New York Bay and foUowed the great river as far as the present city of Albany. Then he saUed back to Europe and presently left the service of the Dutch company. His last voyage to Hudson Bay, on which he lost his life, was in command of an EngUsh ship. Meantime, however, the reports of this voyage proved convenient in subsequent controversies with the EngUsh and served to stimulate interest in the val ley, particularly in its possibUities for the fur trade. During the next ten years, there was no real colonization; but the river and the adjoining coast were frequented by Dutch traders who made their headquarters on Manhattan Island. The first serious move toward colonization was made in 1621, when the great mercantile interests of the Netherlands secured from their federal congress, the States-General, the charter of a new corporation known as the Dutch West India Company. The promoters of this organization hoped to make it a powerful agency for promoting national inter ests throughout the western seas, just as the Dutch East India Company was graduaUy breaking down the Portu guese monopoly in the Indian Ocean and the Far East. The scope of the new company included not only the Western Hemisphere but also the West African coast, with aU its possibUities for the slave trade. In this ambitious program, NEW NETHERLAND 145 the colonization of the Hudson vaUey was only one item, perhaps less important than the conflict with the Portu guese in Brazil. Nevertheless, it was this company which founded New Netherland, sending out its first settlers in 1623. It is characteristic of the whole subsequent history of this region, that these pioneer settlers of New Amsterdam on Manhattan Island were not aU of one nationality. Less than half were Dutchmen, the majority being French-speaking WaUoons from the provinces then held by Spain but now a part of Belgium. By 1629, it became evident that the colony was not making much progress and that fresh efforts were necessary if it was to five and prosper. Accordingly, in 1629 the company adopted the so-caUed Charter of Freedoms and Charter of Exemptions, an elaborate plan for stimulating emigration S^E^mp- and enUsting the capital of the wealthy Dutch merchants. tions- Every investor who transported fifty adult colonists to New Netherland within four years was to become a patroon, or manorial lord, receiving a great landed estate on one of the two great rivers of the colony. On this estate, he would not only receive rents from his tenants but also exercise civU and criminal jurisdiction, though the tenant could appeal to the provincial government at New Amsterdam. Some provision was also made for smaUer landowners who could not afford to make such large investments. Mean- wMle the company reserved the control of Manhattan Island and a partial monopoly of the fur trade. The new plan did not work weU, partly because of un- Slow fair deaUng by some of the directors, who used their inside progress# information to secure much of the best land. The best known of the patroonships actuaUy estabUshed was that founded in the neighborhood of Fort Orange (Albany) by KilUan Van Rensselaer, an Amsterdam jeweler. The company's attempt to monopolize the fur trade also checked the progress of the settlement. So the company was soon obhged to make 146 EXPANSION AND CONQUEST Distribution of population. Racialelements. The fur trade. concessions; some of the trade restrictions were removed and small freeholders settling in viUages were promised a limited amount of self-government. These measures at tracted some colonists; but as compared with New England, the growth of New Netherland was insignificant. In 1650, the Dutch had hardly 3000 people in aU their settlements as against about ten times that number in the Puritan colonies alone. This meager population was scattered over a vast area, extending from Fort Orange on the upper Hudson, and the "House of Hope" on the Connecticut to a few straggling posts on the Delaware. The greater part of the colonists Uved on Manhattan and a few viUages in the immediate neighborhood, on Long Island, Staten Island, and the west side of the Hudson. New Netherland was never a purely Dutch colony in the sense that Virginia and New England were EngUsh. Besides the French-speaking WaUoons already mentioned, there were many EngUsh, chiefly on Long Island but some on Manhattan itself. The Jews, who have ever since played an important part in the life of the city, came to New Netherland in sufficient numbers to trouble the Dutch Reformed clergy. The chief business of New Netherland was the fur trade, which the company tried to maintain exclusively for itseU. The principal base for this trade was Fort Orange (Albany), from which expeditions were made into the Iroquois country along the Mohawk vaUey. There was some exchange of goods with the EngUsh colonies and the West Indies; but various causes, including the restrictions imposed by the company and its agents, prevented New Netherland from making any adequate use of its magnificent situation. Though agriculture was neglected, there were a few farmers at work, enough to produce a smaU surplus for export. PoUtical development was extremely backward as com pared with that of Virginia or New England. The ultimate DUTCH POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS 147 source of aU authority was the States-General, or federal Government congress of the Netherlands; but for most purposes the Netteriand actual control of the colony was vested in the West India Company, whose powers were simUar to those of the London Company in Virginia. The company transacted its business mainly through a board of directors in HoUand and a director and councU in New Netherland. The managers at home were too far away to keep a close check on affairs in America, and the resident councUors were usuaUy under the thumb of the director. The actual government of New Netherland was therefore thoroughly autocratic during most of its history. The secretary of the province wrote in 1650: "The burghers upon the island of Manhattan and thereabouts must know that nobody comes or is admitted to New Nether land (being a conquest) except upon this condition, that he shaU have nothing to say, and shah acknowledge himself under the sovereignty of Their High Mightinesses the States General and the Lord Managers, as his lords and patrons, and shaU be obedient to the Director and CouncU for the time being as good subjects are bound to be." During the last seventeen years of the Dutch rule the director, or Peter governor, was Peter Stuyvesant, who came to this post from stuyvesant- the West Indian island of Curacao. Stuyvesant was an aggressive, self-confident person, determined to magnify his office and resentful of any attempts to appeal from his de cisions. His efforts to regulate the rehgion and morals of his people suggest a somewhat Puritan point of view; but he was charged with being corrupt as weU as despotic. Before Stuyvesant's arrival, discontent with his predeces sors had led the colonists to try some experiments with a kind of advisory councU and at different times temporary groups, caUed the "Twelve Men" and the "Eight Men," were chosen by the inhabitants. There was, however, no No adequate regular representative assembly as in the Enghsh colonies, representa- Early in Stuyvesant's administration he proposed a tax tion- 148 EXPANSION AND CONQUEST Local governments . Religiouselements. for purposes of defense; but to meet objections, he per mitted the colonists to nommate eighteen persons, of whom nine were chosen by him as a sort of advisory board. Though this was a more permanent institution than the "Twelve Men" and the "Eight Men," it was not truly representative, since after the first election vacancies were fiUed by the board itself and the governor. Besides, the "Nine Men" had no real legislative authority. As the Eng Ush population of the province increased, especiaUy on Long Island, discontent with this autocratic system became more serious and in 1653 a convention from the various towns and viUages insisted on the right of the people to share in the making of laws. The proposal was rejected by Stuyvesant; but, at the very end of the Dutch rule, he was forced to caU another assembly, which for the first time reaUy represented aU parts of the colony. This gathering, however, ended in a deadlock so that New Netherland came to an end without having evolved a permanent system of representation. In the matter of local government, the Dutch had a better record. Though there was no such general develop ment of town Ufe as in New England, the Uttle Dutch vU- lages enjoyed a limited amount of local self-government; they had the right to nominate candidates for local offices, the final selection being made by the director and councU. The EngUsh villages on Long Island, accustomed as they were to the New England system of town government, had to be given more freedom. New Amsterdam, as the capital of the province, had for a time no distinct municipal govern ment, and even after such a government was estabUshed Stuyvesant kept the choice of municipal officers largely in his own hands. The Dutch colonists, Uke the English, were accustomed to a reUgious establishment. The Dutch Reformed Church, whose ideas of doctrine and government were like those of DUTCH RELIGION AND EDUCATION 149 the Scottish and EngUsh Presbyterians, was estabUshed by church and law in the mother country and officiaUy recognized in New 8tate' Netherland. Every patroon was asked to support a min ister, and several of the Dutch Reformed clergy came out under the supervision of the Classis, or presbytery, of Amsterdam. Notwithstanding the existence of a state church, the Dutch government was unusuaUy Uberal in re Ugious matters and for the most part a simUar attitude was taken in New Netherland, where religious sects were even more numerous than the racial elements in the population. Conspicuous among them were the Lutherans and the CongregationaUsts, the latter being especiaUy strong among the New England settlers of Long Island. During Stuyvesant's administration, however, there was some persecution and ordinances were passed prohibiting pubUc services other than those of the estabUshed church. The Quakers came in for speciaUy harsh treatment, but others also suffered. A Baptist preacher was expeUed from the colony and even the Lutherans complained of unfair treatment. Stuyvesant's measures were, however, finaUy disapproved by the company, which was particularly anxious not to hamper the economic development of the colony by discouraging settlers. The Dutch had an enviable reputation in the matter of Pubhc , . education. pubhc education, and the obfigation to provide such education was also recognized in New Netherland. Along with the minis ter, each patroon was expected to support a schoolmaster. The practice did not, however, quite conform to the theory; and one of the chief complaints made by the colonists was that the schools were neglected. In 1657, nearly thirty years after the Charter of Freedoms and Exemptions, it was reported to the church authorities in HoUand that only three places in the colony maintained schools. There was some progress afterwards and the company itself sent over a man to take charge of the Latin School in New Amster- ISO EXPANSION AND CONQUEST dam. Some of the schoolmasters evidently had to work hard for their meager salaries; the magistrates of Breuckelen (Brooklyn), for instance, wanted help in paving the salary of a general-utility man, to "conduct the service of the church, and to sing on Sunday; to take charge of the school, to dig graves, etc., ring the beU, and perform what ever else may be required." Indian Throughout its history New Netherland was surrounded relations. by unfriendly neighbors. Though the Dutch adopted the policy of buying land from the Indians, there was a good deal of trouble with the tribes settled about Manhattan and up the river. The most serious Indian warfare was between 1640 and 1646, when settlers were kflled and property de stroyed even on Manhattan Island. Even as late as 1655, New Amsterdam was attacked by the Indians. SeU- ing firearms to the Indians was a dangerous business, but it was not effectuaUy regulated because the profits were too The Iroquois, tempting. In their relations with the Iroquois confederacy, or Five Nations, who occupied the region on both sides of the Mohawk VaUey, the Dutch were more fortunate. This friendly understanding and the trade which developed with it were valued by the Iroquois as a support against the French in the North and also against their Indian rivals in the fur trade. Notwithstanding their affiance with the Iroquois, the Dutch managed to keep on fairly good terms with the French. International On the Delaware River, the Dutch had to meet both NewSweden. Swedish and English competition. New Sweden grew out of an elaborate plan for colonization which looked to the cooperation of the Swedes with the Protestants of Germany; one of its chief promoters was WUlem Usselinx, the founder of the Dutch West India Company. The actual result of aU this planning was disappointing; but in 1638 a Swedish fort was estabUshed on the present site of Wilmington, Dela ware, and during the next seventeen years a few hundred rivalry. CONQUEST OF NEW SWEDEN 151 settlers — Swedes, Finns, and Dutchmen — came out to farm and trade under Swedish protection. When the first Swedish colonists arrived, the Dutch had no substantial settlements on the river, though they stiU claimed jurisdic tion over this region. During the Thirty Years War, the common interest of these two Protestant nations helped to prevent a break between the rival colonies; but the Dutch always regarded the Swedes as interlopers and were annoyed by their competition in the fur trade. When the peace of WestphaUa brought the long war to an end, the two colonies Conquest of naturaUy clashed. The Swedes won a short-lived advantage Sweden. by taking the Dutch post of Fort Casimir on the lower Delaware; but in 1655 the Dutch retaUated, the Swedes were overpowered, and New Sweden was absorbed in New Netherland. It was much easier for Stuyvesant to deal with the Swedes Anglo-Dutch than with the EngUsh. The latter were aggressive, then- numbers were increasing, and they had behind them a govern ment which, if not always successful in European poUtics, was a keen competitor in everything connected with over seas commerce. WhUe Stuyvesant was denouncing the Swedes as trespassers, the EngUsh were equaUy sure that the Dutch had no business on the Hudson. EspeciaUy dangerous was the westward advance of the New Englanders; from Connecticut and New Haven they were steadUy mov ing along the northern shore of Long Island Sound toward the Hudson, and estabUshing settlements on Long Island itself. Yet, as in the Dutch-Swedish rivalry on the Dela ware, the common interests of two Protestant powers re strained the rival colonists for a time and the Dutch did a good deal of trading with the Virginians and New Eng landers. In 1650 Stuyvesant negotiated a boundary agree ment with his New England neighbors which, though never ratified by the EngUsh government, was actually observed for a time. It was agreed that Long Island should be divided, *52 EXPANSION AND CONQUEST War between England and Holland. World-widecompetition. The English conquest of New Netherland. the EngUsh keeping the eastern part while the western set tlements, EngUsh as weU as Dutch, were included in New Netherland. In 1652 the old commercial jealousy between England and HoUand broke out in actual warfare and New Nether land found itself in a dangerous position. The Connecticut and New Haven people were eager for an attack on the Dutch and in 1654 CromweU sent out a fleet for that purpose under the command of New England officers. Massachu setts, however, was not so zealous. Before the expedition was ready, the European war came to an end and New Nether land was saved for the time being. Nevertheless, the com mercial rivalry between the two nations could not be so easUy settled. On the African coast Dutch slave traders were trying to drive out their EngUsh competitors and in the Far East old jealousies continued. More important stUl, ParUament was making a determined effort to dislodge the Dutch from their dominant position in the European carrying trade and also to break up their commerce with the EngUsh colonies by limiting such trade to EngUsh ships. One great obstacle to success in this policy, and a most con venient base for Ulegal trade, was the Dutch colony on the Hudson. Thus EngUsh opinion on both sides of the water was graduaUy prepared for aggressive action. In 1664, while England and HoUand were stiU nominaUy at peace, Charles H gave to his brother James, Duke of York, a patent making him proprietor of a new EngUsh province extending from the Connecticut to the Delaware, thus corresponding roughly with New Netherland. In the same year, whUe this terri tory was stiU in the possession of the Dutch, James appointed a governor, Richard NicoUs, to represent him in the manage ment of his new province. In August, 1664, Stuyvesant was confronted by an EngUsh fleet and a miUtary force too strong for him to resist, especiaUy in view of the discon- THE ENGLISH CONQUEST 153 tent among his own people. Accordingly he accepted the terms offered by NicoUs, and New Netherland became New York. Three years later the conquest was confirmed by the treaty of Breda (1667), and though, as the result of a new Anglo-Dutch War, the Dutch held the territory again for a few months in 1673-74, they soon had to give it up. Hence forth EngUsh control of the Atlantic seaboard extended without a break, so far as foreign rivals were concerned, from Maine to South Carolina. In the great series of events which have estabUshed the supremacy of English-speaking people in North America, this conquest of New Netherland and the Delaware vaUey ranks in importance with the con quest of Canada in 1760 and the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES Channing, United States, I, chs. XVI, XVII; II, 1-37- Tyler, General L. G., England in America, 282-295, 310-317; with Andrews, works- C. M., Colonial Self-Government, chs. V, LX-X. Beer, G. L., Old Colonial System (economic factors emphasized). Abbott, W. C, Expansion of Europe, II, chs. XXIII-XXVT. Background Cambridge Modern History, IV, ch. XXV; V, chs. V, VTII, IX. ^^ ^j Jameson, J. F., Willem Usselinx (Am. Hist. Assoc, Papers, II, commerce. no. 3). Seeley, J. R., Expansion of England, especiaUy Lec ture VI, and his Growth of British Policy, II, pts. Ill, IV. School craft, H. L., in Eng. Hist. Review, XXII, 674-693. Blok, P. J., History of the People of the Netherlands, III, ch. Ill; IV, 34-411 186-219, 3°2-3i°) 3i7~338- Cross, England and Greater Britain, chs. XXXI-XXXV. Contempo- TraiU, H. D., Social England, IV, ch. XV. Tanner, J. R., Pepys gSory?£ and the Royal Navy. Airy, O., Charles II, chs. Ill, IV. Winsor, America, V, ch. V. Osgood, American Colonies, II, Carolina nppinnintfs. chs. LX, X. Ashe, S. A., North Carolina, I, chs. VI-XII. Saun ders, W. L., Colonial Records of North Carolina, I, "Prefatory Notes," pp. ix-xxv. McCrady, E., South Carolina, 1670-1719, chs.I-XV. Ravenel, Charleston, the Place and the People, chs. i-ra. 1 54 EXPANSION AND CONQUEST Sources. SaUey, A. S., Narratives of Early Carolina. Hart, Contempo raries, I, nos. 78-81; II, 34. Charters and Fundamental Con stitutions in Macdonald, Select Charters, nos. 26, 32, 33. New Nether- Goodwin, M. W., Dutch and English on the Hudson, chs. ISnqu'St! itS t-VB" Janvier, Dutch Founding of New York. Innes, J. H., New Amsterdam. Tuckerman, B., Peter Stuyvesant. Van Rensse laer, Mrs. S., History of the City of New York, especiaUy ch. XIV. For institutional beginnings see Osgood, American Colonies, Ii; and McKinley, A. E., English and Dutch Towns of New Netherland {Am. Hist. Review, VI, 1-18). Sources. Macdonald, Select Charters, no. 9. Hart, Contemporaries, I, iSo-JSS. 160-171. Jameson, J. F., Narratives of New Netherland. CHAPTER VIII ENGLISH COLONIZATION OF THE HUDSON AND DELAWARE VALLEYS, 1664 TO 1688 The conquest of New Netherland and the outlying posts New York on the Delaware was comparatively easy, but the new prob- m l66*' lem of governing the country and developing its resources was far more difficult. The territory which the Duke of York secured by the royal patent was not only extensive but awkwardly distributed. Its central division was the long, narrow strip lying between the Connecticut and Dela ware rivers, extending northward to the French colonies in the St. Lawrence vaUey. A second division included certain islands along the coast of southern New England — Long Island, Nantucket, Marthas Vineyard, and a few others. A third entirely detached section included the north eastern part of Maine, between the St. Croix and Kennebec rivers. Besides aU this territory definitely granted by the patent, the Duke also claimed the Dutch and Swedish set tlements on the western side of the Delaware on the ground that they were dependencies of New Netherland. Almost every part of this area bristled with controversial Territorial questions, some of which were debated for more than a century, with the result that the territory of New York at the close of the colonial era was quite different from that described in the charter. So far as Maine, Nantucket, and Marthas Vineyard were concerned, the Duke's paper claim was soon disposed of and they became a part of Massachu setts. Before long, by the action of the Duke himself and that of the King, the southern territory on both sides of the Delaware was taken to form the new provinces of New Jersey iS5 156 HUDSON AND DELAWARE VALLEYS, 1664-1688 Heterogeneous popu lation.Problem of assimilation. and Pennsylvania. After much wrangling, Long Island was brought under the control of New York; but even in the central division, something had to be given up. The Duke could not hold the territory so far east as the Connecticut without bringing on a serious conflict with the colony of that name, the most important part of which lay west of that river. Connecticut could also claim a royal charter issued only two years before the New York patent. Farther up the river was the conflicting claim of Massachusetts. Within a few years the controversy with Connecticut was substantiaUy settled by a compromise which drew the line where it now is, a few mfles east of the Hudson. The province of New York was thus reduced to two long and narrow strips, pivoting, so to speak, on Manhattan Island; one of these, Long Island, paraUeled the New England coast in a north easterly direction and the other extended northward on both banks of the Hudson, toward the French frontier. Fortu nately for the future state of New York, the early EngUsh governors were able to bring the Iroquois country into an English "sphere of influence," thus opening a gateway for westward expansion. The inhabitants of the conquered province, with then- different racial origins, special interests, and reUgious tradi tions, required careful handling. For many years, the Dutch continued to form the principal element in the population. Most of them lived within a comparatively smaU circle, centering at New Amsterdam and including a group of vU- lages at the western end of Long Island. Up the river at Fort Orange were a few settlers whose strategic position with reference to the Iroquois trade gave them an importance out of proportion to their numbers. Though the Dutch had enjoyed comparatively Uttle self-government before the EngUsh conquest, they had certain local customs which they desired to preserve, some of which were guaranteed to them by NicoUs when he received the surrender of the ENGLISH ADMINISTRATION IN NEW YORK 157 province. Not less difficult to manage were the EngUsh viUages on Long Island, which were deeply imbued with New England ideas about seU-government and quite un willing to accept quietly the role of subjects in a con quered province. The government estabUshed over these people differed Autocratic in important respects from the proprietary systems of eovernment. Maryland and Carolina. It was not thought necessary, in a conquered country, to secure the consent of the people either in making laws or in levying taxes. Consequently there was no provision at first for a representative assembly, and the proprietor had almost absolute authority. The one important safeguard was the right of the colonists to appeal from the provincial courts to the Privy CouncU in England. In addition, the Dutch inhabitants of New Nether land had been promised certain privfleges in relation to property, religious liberty, and local self-government. The Duke of York never visited his colony and his autocratic powers were therefore delegated, for the most part, to his governor, assisted by a councU also appointed by the proprietor. James was fortunate in the man whom he chose for this Governor important trust. Richard NicoUs, the first EngUsh governor NicoUs. of New York, was one of those loyal CavaUers who fought for Charles I, and then went into exUe with the King's son. NicoUs was a soldier but he understood better than most soldiers how to deal with civiUans. Under the provisions of the patent and of his instructions, he had despotic powers; but his despotism was generaUy benevolent, and skillful diplomacy made it tolerable for the various kinds of people whom he governed. First of aU, he set out to Anglicize the province. EngUsh place names were substituted for Dutch in many cases. So New Netherland and New Amsterdam Estabiish- became New York, and Fort Orange became Albany. The men|yf EngUsh county organization was introduced, with sheriffs institutions. I$& HUDSON AND DELAWARE VALLEYS, 1664-1688 The Duke's Laws. Governor Andros. Representation given and with drawn. and justices of the peace, who held court within their respec tive districts and also met once a year with the governor and councU in a "court of assizes." Through this court, NicoUs put into effect a code known as the Duke's Laws, based partly on EngUsh law and partly on the practice of the New England colonies. After a short interval most of the old Dutch officers gave way to English constables and over seers, though the frontiersmen at Albany were aUowed to go on for a time in the old ways. For the EngUsh settlers on Long Island, these new arrangements meant less poUtical Uberty than they had previously enjoyed, and there was considerable discontent among them, though NicoUs man aged to avoid a serious break. In 1674, after the temporary loss of the province to the Dutch, the proprietor sent out as governor a man who occupied a conspicuous place in American history for the next quarter century. This was Edmund Andros, another army officer, with influential famUy connections at the English court. Though less skillful than NicoUs in the art of managing men, Andros was an energetic official, honestly trying to carry out the pohcies assigned to him and loyal to his "King and country." During his administration, popular feeling against the unrepresentative character of the government increased, especiaUy among the EngUsh settlers, and in 1681 some of the merchants refused to pay certain duties on the ground that they had never been legally authorized. Even the justices of the peace, themselves nominees of the governor, urged the estabfishment of a representative assembly. The Duke was reluctant to caU an assembly; but the difficulty of getting revenue without it finaUy convinced him that it was necessary. In 1683 he sent out a new governor with instructions providing that hereafter the laws of the province should be made by a legislature con sisting, as in Virginia, of the governor, the council, and STATE AND CHURCH IN NEW YORK 159 representatives of the freeholders, subject to veto by the proprietor himself. The New Yorkers were much elated and the new assembly showed a decided tendency to magnify its office. Among other things, they adopted the so-caUed Charter of Liberties and Privileges which set forth em phatically the rights of the "people" and their representa tives. Offensive as such language was to a Stuart prince, James was apparently ready to accept the charter; just at this time, however, Charles II died, James, Duke of York, became James II, King of England, and New York New York became a royal province. There were now great plans on a r°yal , . . or- province. ] foot for a radical reorganization of the colonial governments and James decided to keep a free hand by rejecting the Charter of Liberties and aboUshing the assembly. The religious situation was also difficult. The Dutch Problems Reformed Church no longer received special recognition from ^d^te". the government, but it was stiU the strongest rehgious or ganization in the province and in some towns its ministers were supported by public taxation. Next in numbers and influence came the EngUsh Puritans, who were able to pro vide similar support for their Congregational churches in several of the Long Island towns. The Church of England was very smaU in New York, but it was now the official church and AngUcan services were held in the fort on Manhattan. The situation was still further compUcated by the fact that the proprietor himself was a Roman CathoUc. Under these circumstances, the only possible poUcy was one of toleration, which was actuaUy adopted. This did not, however, prevent bitter feeling on the part of the Protestants toward the smaU CathoUc minority, which included a few officeholders. Unjust as this feeling was, it was partly due to the international situation. The New Yorkers felt keenly their exposed position on the Anglo-French frontier and were impressed by the influence of the CathoUc French mis sionaries among the Indians. It was not difficult, therefore, 160 HUDSON AND DELAWARE VALLEYS, 1664-1688 Economic development. The com merce of New York. to excite reUgious prejudice by suggesting that a good CathoUc could not be a loyal EngUsh subject. Notwithstanding these differences in reUgion and poUtics, New York was moderately prosperous during the early years of EngUsh rule. Some of the thrifty Dutch burghers found it possible to make money and acquire land at least as rapidly as under their old government. Dutch famUies like the PhiUipses and Van Cortlandts were soon represented in the provincial councU, where they met the new landowners of Scotch or English descent. The EngUsh governors made lavish grants of land to influential personages and there developed along the Hudson a number of large manorial estates, on which the Ufe of the EngUsh gentry and their tenants was perhaps more nearly reproduced than anywhere else in America. Negro slaves had been introduced by the Dutch, and their numbers increased after the EngUsh con quest, though not on any such scale as in Virginia and South CaroUna. Side by side with the great landowners and their tenantry there were smaU farmers, Dutch and EngUsh, the former most numerous on the Hudson and the latter on Long Island. Durmg most of the colonial era, however, a smaU number of weU-to-do famUies closely related to each other by intermarriage as weU as by business interests, dominated the society and poUtics of the province. The New York farmers of this period were producing enough to enable them to export foodstuffs in considerable quantities. In 1678 Governor Andros reported that 60,000 bushels of wheat were exported annuaUy, besides beef, pork, and other farm products. These were, for the most part, sent southward by sea, especiaUy to the West Indies. Some of this trade was carried on in New York ships, but ship- buUding was less developed than in New England. In one branch of commerce, New York distinctly took the lead for the next half century. This was the fur trade, which had long been the chief attraction of this region to the com- THE IROQUOIS AND THE FUR TRADE 161 peting European traders, and which after the EngUsh con quest became the great bone of contention between the New Yorkers and their French rivals on the St. Lawrence. During the Dutch period, the fur trade was largely in The fur the hands of a group of officials and traders at Albany, who thei>oquois. succeeded in establishing close relations with the Iroquois. At first the furs which the Iroquois sold to their white neighbors were largely taken on their own hunting grounds, but as these fields were graduaUy exhausted, they became more and more middlemen between the Albany traders and the tribes of the Lake region. After the EngUsh conquest, the business was left as before in the hands of the Albany settlers, stiU mainly Dutchmen but now reenforced by a few British. Among these Albany traders two famUies stand out conspicuously, the Dutch Schuylers and the Scotch Livingstons. The chief articles used in the fur trade were firearms, coarse cloths, and rum, for aU of which there was a steady demand among the Indians. The Iroquois valued their connection with the English, partly because the latter could seU goods cheaper than the French, and partly because the French, having important trade routes farther to the north, were less dependent on the Iroquois. So there was formed a close commercial and political affiance which the EngUsh used effectively during the next hundred years. The English governor who saw most clearly the strategic Thomas possibUities of the New York frontier, whether for trade or poUtics, was not an EngUshman at aU, but the Irish CathoUc, Thomas Dongan. In an era of intense reUgious partisanship, when the loyalty of CathoUcs was sharply questioned, this CathoUc governor was probably the most persistent and aggressive defender of British interests in North America. In the face of vigorous protests from the French governor at Quebec, Dongan worked steadily to strengthen British influence over the Iroquois, and in 1684 persuaded some of the chiefs to put themselves definitely under EngUsh pro- Dongan. 162 HUDSON AND DELAWARE VALLEYS, 1664-1688 Beginningsof New Jersey. PoUticalstatus. tection. He had even more ambitious plans, including the estabhshment of trading posts on the Lakes, but these were not realized. WhUe the Anglo-Dutch farmers and fur traders of New York were strengthening their hold on the Hudson-Mohawk gateway to the West, a very different development was taking place in New Jersey. This province, included in the original grant to the Duke of York but almost immediately given away to his CavaUer friends, Berkeley and Carteret, had one advantage over most of the other EngUsh colonies. Except for the short northern line, drawn from the Hudson a few mUes above Manhattan northwestward to the Dela ware, its boundaries were aU marked by obvious physical features. On the east were the Hudson and the Atlantic ocean; on the south and west, Delaware Bay and River. This, however, is about the only simple and clean-cut feature of early New Jersey history. The poUtical status of the territory was confused from the beginning. From a purely legal point of view, the pro prietors were probably landlords only, without the right to estabUsh a government. Consequently when they sent out governors and other agents, these officials were confronted by the conflicting claims of the Duke's governors at New York. The most aggressive of the New York governors in this respect was Andros, who undertook to appoint officials in various parts of New Jersey and coUect customs duties from vessels bound to New Jersey ports. In 1679, he even arrested Governor Carteret, a relative of Sir George, the proprietor, and took him to New York for trial. In the end, the Duke of York and the King practicaUy recognized the governmental rights of the proprietors; but in the meantime these opposing claims had seriously compUcated the rela tions of the provincial authorities with the incoming colonists. As compared with other EngUsh colonies, New Jersey NEW JERSEY 1 63 had a long coast line, but it was deficient in good harbors. Geographic Consequently there were only two good points of approach factors- for the occupation of the territory. One was from the side of New York Bay, and it was here in the lowland region, much of which is now practically within the metropolitan or suburban area of the City of New York, that the chief settlements were made during the first ten years of the English occupation. The other natural approach was by way of the Delaware, and another series of settlements was soon estabUshed on or near the eastern bank of that river, extending from the bay to a point considerably above the present site of PhUadelphia. The rough, hUly country of northwestern New Jersey remained practicaUy unoccupied untU a much later period. The earliest occupants of this territory were a few Dutch Early on the west side of the Hudson, and a handful of Dutch setters' and Swedes on the Delaware. Immediately after NicoUs took control at New York, he agreed with some New England immigrants Puritans to give them lands south of New York Bay, where England6" they could reproduce the characteristic features of New Eng land town life. From the point of view of the New Jersey proprietors, these people had no legal rights; but they held their ground and for a time helped to make life strenuous, if not miserable, for the proprietary governor. Meantime the proprietors themselves were making a strong bid for more New England settlers. In 1665, they issued a "Conces- Concession sion and Agreement," providing for a governor and council ^J^^s, appointed by themselves and a house of representatives chosen by the freemen; land was offered on liberal terms and a special appeal was made to prospective Puritan settlers by promising them not only toleration but grants of land to support ministers of their own choice. Under these condi tions, the next ten years showed a considerable influx of settlers, partly from the old country but quite largely from New England. The promises of the proprietors were fairly of the province 164 HUDSON AND DELAWARE VALLEYS, 1664-1688 kept, but they did not satisfy the aggressive Puritan settlers; there was constant bickering about titles and the quit- rents reserved by the proprietors. About ten years after the original grant to Berkeley and Carteret, the situation was compUcated stUl further. So far, the whole province had been held by the two proprietors jointly; but in 1674 Berkeley sold his rights to two Quakers Division named Fenwick and ByUinge, who made a bargain with Carteret by which the province was divided into two parts, known thereafter as East New Jersey and West New Jersey. Carteret's share included the new settlements in the northern region; but the western, or southern, part along the Dela ware became the scene of the first important Quaker experi- West New ment in government. After a great deal of controversy between ByUinge and Fenwick, West New Jersey came into the hands of a large number of Quaker proprietors, among whom the leading spirit was William Penn, soon to become more famous as the founder of Pennsylvania. These new proprietors set up a constitution more hberal than any then existing outside of New England. Under this arrangement several towns and villages were estabUshed along the Delaware, of which the most important were Burlington, above the site of PhUadelphia, and Salem, near the head of Delaware Bay. Thus by a curious irony of fate, the efforts of two CavaUer proprietors had resulted chiefly in giving new homes to New England Puritans and making possible for a few years a kind of Quaker Common wealth. East New West New Jersey was hardly under way, before Sir Jersey. George Carteret died and the holders of his title sold their interest in East New Jersey to another group of Quakers. WiUiam Penn, who had just secured his Pennsylvania charter, was also one of the new proprietors of East New Jersey and his influence may be seen in the elaborate con stitution now prepared for the latter colony, but never Following 164 o 0 ENGLISH CONTINENTAL COLONIES to 1684 SCALE OF MILES 150 200 Elevations in feet j Over lOOO ~~ I 100 to lOOO : I Sea level to 10O WILLIAM PENN 165 actually put in operation. The original Quaker purchasers almost immediately took in other partners of different reUgious affiUations; several of them were not EngUshmen at aU but Scotchmen. Under the influence especiaUy of the new partners, many Scottish immigrants, largely Pres byterians, now found their way to East New Jersey. Their relations with the New England Puritans who were the leading element in these northern towns may not have been altogether happy at first; but in the end these two Calvin istic groups combined with stiU later immigrants from the north of Ireland to make Presbyterianism the dominant reUgious force in this region. Neither of the Jerseys, however, had any estabUshed church corresponding to those set up in Massachusetts and Virginia. At the end of their first quarter century, the Jerseys probably had a total population between ten and fifteen thousand. About two thirds of them hved in the northern province of East Jersey, where the economic and social Sodaland development was simUar to that in the rural sections of New conditions. England. The inhabitants were largely farmers with moder ate holdings, Uving together in fairly compact settlements. Some effort was made to develop Perth Amboy into an important port, but without much success, and throughout the colonial era this region was commerciaUy dependent on New York. In West New Jersey, there were a few large holdings, comparable with those in the southern colonies, and there were some negro slaves. Meantime, across the Delaware, one of the Quaker pro- William moters just mentioned had begun the most important enn' colonizing enterprise of the whole Restoration period. In the personaUty and career of WUUam Penn, the founder of Pennsylvania, there was a curious meeting of the two quite different forces which contributed most largely to British colonial expansion in the later seventeenth century. By birth and famUy connections he belonged to that ruling class t.66 HUDSON AND DELAWARE VALLEYS, 1664-1668 in England which was eager to exploit the economic resources of the New World, for themselves as weU as for their country. Yet by his own choice Penn was also associated with a group of radical enthusiasts, quite outside that ruling circle, who looked to America as a refuge from intolerable conditions at home and as the scene of a hopeful experiment in reUgion and government. PemVs early Penn's early surroundings seemed adapted to the making associations ^ a successfui poUtician and courtier, rather than a reUgious cation- leader and social reformer. His father, Sir William Penn, was, Uke some of the Carolina proprietors, a servant of the Puritan Commonwealth who managed to keep and improve his poUtical fortunes under the King. An admiral in Crom- weU's time, he became one of the chief personages in the royal navy under the Duke of York. The official and court circles in which he moved included many of the people who were promoting the colonization of New York, the Jerseys, and the Carolinas, or investing their funds in the Hudson Bay and Royal African companies. In order to fit the younger Penn for a creditable part in this society, he was sent to Oxford. When, under the speU of a Quaker preacher, the boy developed unconventional reUgious ideas, he was given the benefit of the "grand tour" on the Continent and came back, as Pepys said, quite a "modish" youth. When the admiral died, his more worldly contemporaries must have thought that he had done very weU by his son. He had given the young man the education of a gentleman, access to court circles, and a considerable fortune, not to mention a claim of £16,000 against the King. With aU these advantages, the younger Penn might have gone far in English poUtics, or, if he figured in American history at aU, it might have been as an ordinary plantation promoter. As a matter of fact he did make good use of his assets in property, education, and social training; but for purposes quite different from those which might have been expected. THE SOCDETY OF FREENDS 167 The turning point in Penn's career came a few years Penn and before his father died, when with romantic enthusiasm he of VriendT threw in his lot with a persecuted sect, caUed by themselves the Society of Friends, but better known to the outside world as the Quakers. About twenty years before Penn's conver sion, George Fox, the founder of the society, began to preach his gospel of a purely spiritual Christianity, independent of external forms and deriving its authority solely from the voice of God speaking to the individual conscience. As Penn himself put it, the "right way to peace with God," Quaker which they beUeved "others had been vainly seeking with- v^^^a out, with much pains and cost, they by this ministry found within." Forms and ceremonies, priesthoods, and temples buUt with human hands — aU these had served their purposes in times gone by; but they were only "signs, types, and shadows" destined to disappear. So the Quakers rejected not only the CathoUc and AngUcan priesthoods, but formaUy ordained ministers of any kind. Even the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper seemed to them quite un necessary; their preachers were not to pray or preach at fixed times, but only when moved by the spirit, for which they waited in sUence. Rejecting a paid ministry for them selves, they refused to pay tithes for the support of any other clergy, whether in England or in a Puritan colony. They also claimed exemption from certain traditional duties to the state, including miUtary service and the taking of an oath in a court of justice. Both these things they regarded as contrary to Christian teaching. In other respects the Quakers were generaUy law-abiding and they condemned the idea of resistance by force even to a tyrannical government. Though democratic and, in theory, highly individuaUstic, they developed an organization of weekly, monthly, and yearly "meetings," which they used effectively for mutual protection, supervising the personal conduct of members, and spreading the faith. The center of this organization 1 68 HUDSON AND DELAWARE VALLEYS, 1664-1688 Persecutionof the Quakers. Penn'sdefense of religiousUberty. Quaker projects of colonization. was the London yearly meeting, at which regular reports were received from Friends throughout the world. People holding such opinions could hardly escape perse cution at the hands of the Restoration government. AU dis senters were penalized by the legislation of that time, but the authorities were especiaUy drastic in their treatment of radical sects Uke the Baptists and the Quakers. The latter were made more conspicuous in the pubhc eye by superficial pecuUarities, Uke their refusal to use the pronoun you in speaking to a single person and their habit of keeping their hats on even in the presence of official superiors. So the Quakers were frequently imprisoned for holding fllegal meet ings and many died in prison. Notwithstanding his social connections, young Penn had his share in these experiences and was deeply impressed, not only with the iniquity of persecution for conscience's sake, but almost equaUy with the unfairness of the judges, which seemed to ignore the fundamental EngUsh traditions of personal Uberty. In 1670 he set forth his theories in a notable book, The Great Case of Liberty of Conscience. If England was a discouraging place for conscientious Quakers, the older American settlements were not much better. Massachusetts was the only colony which actuaUy enforced the death penalty, but almost everywhere there was some hostile legislation. It was not strange, therefore, that George Fox and other Friends began to think of estab- Ushing a colony of their own. For a time West New Jersey seemed to offer the desired opportunity; but to make the Quaker experiment a thorough success there must be better security against interference, and that required a royal charter. Fortunately, Penn's early encounters with magis trates and jaUers did not prevent his becoming intimate with the highest personages, including the two royal brothers, Charles and James. Neither of the latter reaUy sympathized with the Quakers, but James's conversion to CathoUcism PENN'S CHARTER 169 and his brother's secret sympathy with it led them to favor toleration, primarily for Catholics but incidentaUy also for Protestant dissenters. This intimacy damaged Penn's repu tation among AngUcans and Puritans; but out of it came, first, the royal charter giving him a great tract of land along the Delaware; and, second, the Duke of York's grant of the " territories " occupied by the early Dutch and Swedish settlements west of the Delaware River, which he claimed as a dependency of New Netherland. The boundaries of Pennsylvania were more definite than those of some other colonies, but there was plenty of room for differences of interpretation and these led to some of the most persistent and disagreeable boundary disputes of colonial times. The eastern boundary was the Delaware, and instead of the indefinite sea-to-sea grants of Virginia, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, Pennsylvania was to extend only five degrees westward. There was some question later just how that western line should be drawn; but for the next half century, the chief difficulties arose about the northern and southern boundaries. The northern fine of the forty-third paraUel finaUy had to be given up on account of the conflicting claims of New York to the Iroquois country, and the present Une of the forty -second degree was accepted by the Pennsylvanians as "the beginning of the forty-third degree." Much more troublesome was the southern boundary, which was to begin on the Delaware twelve mUes above Newcastle and foUow the curve of a circle, drawn with the same twelve-mUe radius, until that circle intersected the "beginning of the fortieth degree." There were several difficulties about this statement. To begin with, the pro posed circle about Newcastle was too far south to intersect the fortieth parallel. Then came Lord Baltimore with a reminder that aU the territory south of that paraUel belonged to hirri under the charter of 1632. Unfortunately, his claim The Penn sylvaniacharter of 1681. Boundaries of Penn sylvania. The con troversy with Maryland. 170 HUDSON AND DELAWARE VALLEYS 1664-1688 The govern ment of Pennsylvania. Imperial control. was not supported by actual occupation; and Penn, who was determined to have the line drawn far enough south to give him a good port for seagoing commerce, maintained that the phrase, "beginning of the fortieth degree," included the whole zone between the thirty-ninth and fortieth paraUels. This controversy and that about the so-caUed "territories" farther down the river, which were not included in the Pennsylvania charter but had been secured from the Duke of York, were not completely settled in Penn's lifetime, and they embittered the relations of Pennsylvania and Mary land until the middle of the eighteenth century. Penn did not make good his extreme claim, but he kept the strip lying between the Newcastle "circle" and the fortieth paraUel and was able to bufld upon its water front a city which soon became one of the chief commercial ports of North America. He also estabUshed his claim to the "territories" now in cluded in the state of Delaware. Evidently Penn was quite capable of looking after his own interests and knew how to use his political influence to good advantage. Penn's authority over his new province was in many respects simUar to that of the earUer proprietors. Executive power was to be exercised by him directly or through his agents, but the settlers had to be consulted in the making of laws. The chief differences between Penn's charter and those of Maryland and CaroUna were due not so much to his own personal views, as to a change in the colonial poUcy of the EngUsh government. In the older colonies, the pro prietary governments were surprisingly independent of the Crown; but by 1681 the authorities in England were con vinced that this arrangement was not satisfactory. ParUa ment had recently passed a series of Navigation Acts regulating American commerce, which depended for their en forcement upon the cooperation of the colonial governments. In the chartered colonies, however, colonial officials were chosen either by the inhabitants or by the proprietors and PENN'S PROPOSALS 171 were not much interested in suppressing profitable trade, even when it happened to conflict with an act of ParUament. So the King, though wiUing to obUge Penn in general, saw to it that imperial interests were better protected than in the earUer charters. The laws of Pennsylvania had to be sent to England for approval or veto; anyone who was dissatisfied with the decision of a provincial court could appeal to the Privy CouncU; and in order to make sure that the acts of trade were strictly enforced, Penn had to keep an agent in England who could be caUed to account for violations of the law. One interesting clause of the charter impUed the right of Parliament to tax the colonists; taxes were to be laid only with the consent of the colonial as sembly, "or by Act of Parliament in England." Nothing in the charter indicated that this was to be a Quaker colony, but there was a clause recognizing the right of the Bishop of London to send out "preachers" of the AngUcan Church who were to be protected in the exercise of their duties. Some of the restrictions imposed by the royal charter caused Penn and his successors considerable inconvenience in after years; but at first he had a fairly free hand and the Stuart government was as friendly as could reasonably be expected. For Penn, as for other colonial promoters, the first essential was to attract settlers, and the methods which he adopted were not altogether different from those of his predecessors, though his plan had some unique features. In working it out, he kept two quite distinct considerations in view. Penn certainly desired to carry out a "holy experi- Penn's "holy ment," which he believed would be of great value to man- exPenmen • kind; but at the same time he wanted fair returns on his investment, — a legitimate expectation which, nevertheless, led to some disparagement of his phflanthropic purposes. His first inducement to settlers was the chance to take up Land 'and on easy terms, either in large tracts for a lump sum, with ^° cy' an annual quitrent reserved to the proprietor, or in smaUer 172 HUDSON AND DELAWARE VALLEYS 1664-1688 quantities at the modest rental of a penny an acre. Indentured servants were to receive fifty acres each on the expiration of their terms of service. Here were opportunities for almost everyone — artisans whose labor would bring much larger returns in America than they could expect at home, and pros perous middle-class people, of whom the Quakers were coming to have at least their fair share, who were glad to become landowners on a considerable scale. Penn also appealed to men who felt in themselves a special capacity for leader ship, "men of universal spirits . . . that both understand and defight to promote good discipline and just government among a plain and weU intending people." Such persons, Penn thought, though not of "much use or service to great Nations under settled customs," might "find room in colonies for their good counsel and contrivance." Penn's con- Penn also provided a Uberal government, which had been experiments, worked out in consultation with some of the more influential among the prospective settlers. In 1682 he issued his first "Frame of Government," whose compUcated machinery shows the influence of contemporary poUtical speculation; it also reminds one of the unlucky Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina. The document brings out clearly Penn's sin cere desire to estabhsh the principles of EngUsh Uberty as he understood them. The governorship was to be held either by Penn himself or, in his absence, by his agent, or deputy; but the councUors and assemblymen were to be chosen by the "freemen," or landowners. He proposed also to simplify and humanize the administration of justice. This first "Frame of Government" proved too compUcated and was almost immediately replaced by a second, which in turn gave way in practice to much simpler forms, partly be cause of popular dissatisfaction but partly also because Penn's own opinions changed. In 1701, on Penn's second visit to America, he came to an understanding with the colonists which was embodied in a "Charter of Privfleges." By this RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 1 73 time, the pecuUar and unworkable features of the system had been pretty weU sloughed off, and the government had come to be much Uke that of an ordinary royal province, but with these important exceptions: the governor and councU were appointed by the proprietor instead of by the King; the councU was not recognized as an upper house; the assembly was stronger and more independent; and the freemen had a larger share in the choice of local officials. In aU these arrangements, Pennsylvania and Delaware were at first treated as a single province; but in the charter of 1701 Penn agreed that the Delaware "territories" should have an assembly of their own, if they desired it, a privUege of which they soon took advantage. No part of Penn's program was better advertised or more Religious attractive than his promise of religious freedom. Though his new colony was meant to be a "Quaker experiment in government," he had no intention of limiting its oppor tunities to those of his own faith. Before his first visit to Pennsylvania, he agreed with some of his principal asso ciates upon a guaranty of reUgious Uberty, which was subse quently adopted by the colonial assembly. This guaranty included freedom of worship for aU law-abiding persons who "acknowledged one Almighty and Eternal God to be the Creator, Upholder, and Ruler of the world." This meant liberty not only for aU Protestant Christians but also for Catholics and Jews. Officeholding was limited to Chris tians, but this limitation was unimportant in the early years of the colony, since the number of persons excluded by it was negUgible. The later record of the colony was not so satisfactory. Under pressure from the home government, CathoUcs also were excluded from office. Nevertheless the outstanding fact is that a great variety of reUgious sects, persecuted in the Old World, found in Pennsylvania a refuge where they could work out their theories without interfer ence. 174 HUDSON AND DELAWARE VALLEYS, 1664-1688 Rapidgrowth of population. Indianpolicy. The new settlers. Racialelements. AU these advantages, economic, poUtical, and reUgious, were advertised throughout the British Isles and on the Continent as weU, especiaUy in Germany, which was stiU suffering from the terrible experiences of the Thirty Years' War. At Frankfort, which Penn had visited a few years before, a land company was organized to take advantage of the opportunities offered. The results of this advertising were soon evident. At the beginning of 1682, there were perhaps a thousand white people in Pennsylvania and Dela ware, chiefly Swedes, Finns, and Dutch. Then the tide of immigration set in strongly; Penn himself came out that year, and by the end of 1683 he reported a population of 4000. In 1685 he estimated that in about three years ninety ships had come over with a total of over 7000 passengers; there was also some immigration from the neighboring Eng Ush colonies. By 1689 the total population of Pennsyl vania and Delaware was probably about 12,000, and this was only the beginning of a remarkable growth which finaUy gave Pennsylvania the largest white population of any EngUsh colony. Penn took great satisfaction in avoiding many mishaps and disasters of the older colonies. He de clared that during the first three years not one ship bound for Pennsylvania had miscarried and also that, because of the healthy situation, there was no such terrible mortality as in early Virginia and New England. An important fac tor in the prospects of Pennsylvania was the skfll and fair ness with which Penn dealt with the Indians. About these matters a good deal of legend has grown up, but his methods certainly won the confidence of the Indians and saved the colony from serious troubles. The new settlers represented a great variety of social, racial, and religious elements. Among the Englishmen who came over were some weU-to-do merchants who acquired large tracts of land and were able to bring servants with them. Then there were many artisans, smaU farmers, and RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS ELEMENTS 175 agricultural laborers coming out, either at their own expense or by making agreements to serve for a term of years, after which they could acquire land and become free citizens. According to Penn's estimate in 1685, only about half the population were EngUsh. Of the rest, many came from other parts of the British Isles. Welsh immigration has left its mark in the names of many places in the vicinity of PhUa- delphia, such as Merion, Radnor, and Bryn Mawr; there were also some Irish Quakers. From the Continent came a few French Protestants and Hollanders. More important German ir, were the Germans, led by the agent of the Frankfort Land misrants- Company, Francis Daniel Pastorius, a notable personage, Pastorius. who laid out the settlement of Germantown, and also deserves to be remembered for one of the best early descriptions of the province. The Germans showed some tendency to develop a separate community life, and Pastorius speaks in one of his early letters of having secured land in order that "we High Germans may maintain a separate little province, and thus feel secure from aU oppression." The German immigration was not large, however, until about thirty years later; and on the whole these German pioneers got on harmoniously with their Quaker neighbors. Of the English, Welsh, and Irish settlers, the majority Religious elements were Quakers. There was, however, a smaU but aggressive AngUcan element, encouraged by royal officials, which was quite out of sympathy with the "holy experiment." Among the German settlers the Lutherans were numerous; but Pennsylvania also proved attractive to certain radical sects which had broken away from the state churches of Germany and suffered persecution for doing so. Con spicuous among them, at first, were the Mennonites, who, like the Quakers, emphasized the "inner Ught." In Penn's advertisements, much was said about the wealth Economic of the sofl and especiaUy the opportunities for wheat grow ing. With these generous resources, the province almost 176 HUDSON AND DELAWARE VALLEYS, 1664-1688 immediately became self-supporting. Before long, wheat, flour, beef and pork were being exported, especiaUy to the West Indies. Penn also did what he could to stimulate manufactures and it was partly for this reason that he wel comed the Germans, who began in a smaU way the manu facture of woolen and linen goods. EspeciaUy dear to his PhUadelphia. heart was the idea of making Philadelphia into an important commercial city. Placed just above the junction of the Del aware and SchuyUtiU rivers, with a good frontage for sea going vessels on either side, it was planned more system atically than any other colonial town. Within four years after Penn received his charter, there were said to be about 600 houses in PhUadelphia, some of them substantiaUy buUt of brick. The fisheries were developed early and the abundant timber was soon used for shipbuUding. In short, Pennsylvania had from the beginning a varied and healthy economic development. Trials and With this general prosperity, there were naturaUy some m^ntsT less pleasing features. After a stay of about two years, Penn went back to England and thereafter, with the ex ception of a second visit of about the same length (1699- 1701), he was an absentee landlord and governor, with all the opportunities for misunderstanding and friction which naturaUy go with such a position. It seemed to Penn that the colonists often showed httle appreciation of his services. EquaUy serious friction developed between the proprietary government and those royal officials whose special duty it was to enforce the Navigation Acts. They claimed that Penn's agents were not mamteining an orderly government, that Ulegal trade was permitted, and that the colony was much too hospitable to pirates. Fortunately, during the first critical years, Penn's influence at court was sufficient to ward off serious attacks. He had stUl many trials to undergo; and, from the point of view of personal profit, the results in his lifetime were disappointing. These, BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 177 however, are smaU matters. The reaUy important fact is that he had succeeded in his "holy experiment," the es- tabUshment of a new commonwealth on the principles of civfl and reUgious Uberty. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES Andrews, C. M., Colonial Self-Government, VI-VTII, XI-XLI; later chapters passim. Channing, United States, II, 37-60, 142- 151 and ch. IV. Fiske, J., Dutch and Quaker Colonies, II, chs. X-XII. Winsor, J., America, III, chs. X-XII. Best accounts by Andrews and Channing as above. For in stitutional developments see Osgood, American Colonies, II. For New York as a frontier province, see Mcllwain, C. H., Wrax- all's Abridgment of the Indian Records, Introduction, especiaUy xxxv-lxii. Fisher, S. G., Quaker Colonies, chs. VIII-X. Duke of York's Charter in Macdonald, Select Charters, no. 29; New Jersey documents ibid., nos. 30, 31, 35-37, 39. Hart, Con temporaries, I, nos. 156, 164-168. James, B. B., and Jameson, J. F., Journal of Jasper Danckaerts. Hodgkin, T., George Fox. (Fox's Journal in various editions.) Hodges, G., William Penn (good brief account) ; fuUer narrative, in Janney, S. M., William Penn, and Buck, W. J., William Penn in America. Fisher, S. G., Quaker Colonies, chs. I-V, XII. Sharpless, I., Quaker Experiment in Government, pt. 1 , esp. chs. I-III. Institu tional beginnings described in Osgood, American Colonies, II, especiaUy ch. XI, and Shepherd, W. R., Proprietary Government in Pennsylvania {Columbia Studies). Macdonald, Select Charters, nos. 38 (Royal charter), 40-41 (Penn's "Frames"), 46 ("Charter of Privileges"). Myers, A. C, Narratives of Early Pennsylvania, West New Jersey and Delaware. Hart, Contemporaries, I, nos. 161-163; II, no. 25. Generalaccounts. New York and New Jersey. Sources. George Fox and Wil liam Penn. Pennsyl vania and Delaware. Sources. CHAPTER LX England'soverseasempire. Themercantile theory. IMPERIALISM AND SELF-GOVERNMENT Doting the first two thirds of the seventeenth century, England had acquired, in more or less haphazard fashion, a great overseas empire, chiefly in America though with im portant commercial interests in Africa and the East Indies. During the greater part of that period, the novelty of the experience and the long conflicts between King and Par Uament prevented the working out of any real imperial plan. There were certain general ideas about the economic function of colonies, but httle was done to give those ideas any practical effect. By the time of the Restoration a new spirit was clearly at work; there was a good deal of fumbling stiU, but there was evidently a serious and fairly consistent poUcy taking shape whose purpose was to weld the scattered parts of the empire into an effective union. Though the driv ing force of this seventeenth-century imperiahsm was eco nomic, it could not be carried through without poUtical reorganization, the substitution of a uniform system of colonial government for the hit-or-miss methods of earlier times. The economic principles of the old EngUsh imperiaUsm were embodied in the so-caUed Navigation Acts or "acts of trade." These, however, cannot be understood without some knowledge of seventeenth-century economics and of the prevailing ideas about the purposes for which colonies were estabUshed. According to the orthodox, or mercantile, theory, which emphasized the control of individual enterprise in the national interest, the wealth and power of a nation were 178 ECONOMIC THEORIES 179 measured largely by its stock of money and precious metals. A given branch of trade was, therefore, considered good or bad according as it increased or diminished this pubUc treasure. So far as possible, EngUshmen should be reUeved from the necessity of buying foreign goods and so sending EijgUsh money out of the country. Conversely, any industry which produced articles for export was considered desirable be cause it brought foreign money into England and helped to create a "favorable balance of trade." According to the mercantUe theory, there were three Economic chief services which colonies ought to render to the mother q™^0113 country. They were expected, first, to employ EngUsh colonies. shipping, thus not only bringing profits to shipowners and merchants but also contributing indirectly to the growth of England's naval power, the merchant marine and the fisheries being regarded as feeders for the royal navy. Col onies were expected, secondly, to produce articles which England would otherwise have to buy either from continen tal Europe or from the colonies of other European nations. Some of these articles were tropical or semi-tropical products, such as oU, silk, wine, and sugar. " Naval stores " also, such as lumber, pitch, tar, were desirable because their production by the colonists would make the Eng lish navy and merchant marine more independent of the Baltic countries. Lastly, it was hoped that the colonies would furnish expanding markets for EngUsh manufacturers. This consideration was less important at first than the other two, but indications of foreign or colonial competition in manufactures were jealously watched. Though these theories were not appUed to the colo- Beginnings nies systematicaUy untU the Restoration period, they were p^?111*1 acted upon in a partial and fitful fashion from the beginning of the colonial era. The Virginians were encouraged to pro duce silk, oUve oU, and wine to take the place of imports from foreign countries. When tobacco, at first frowned upon 180 IMPERIALISM AND SELF-GOVERNMENT by the King, became an important article of export, the Virginians were forbidden to send it directly to continental Europe; by requiring it to go first to England, English merchants were enabled to share in the profits of the trade. Colonial interests were not quite forgotten, for Vkginia tobacco was protected agamst Spanish competition, and to bacco growing in England was forbidden. AU these measures were merely orders of the King and for about forty years after the founding of Virginia, Parliament did not legislate regarding colonial trade. The King considered the colonies as his special preserve and expected Parliament to keep its hands off. Colonial Then came the Civil War and the temporary overthrow fore^ooo! of the monarchy. For a time, Parliament had the whole field to itself, and it began to take a hand in the manage ment of colonial affairs. Its first task was to suppress the royalist elements in the Chesapeake colonies and the West Indies. This was not very difficult; but in the meantime, the offending colonies were punished by restricting their trade. More important stUl was the growing influence of the merchant class, which had, on the whole, taken the side of Parliament as against the King and was now anxious to secure legislation for its own advantage. Just at this time, too, English jealousy of Dutch competition in the carrying trade was becoming more intense; the trade of England and i her colonies at least must be kept in EngUsh hands. The Navigation outcome of the discussion was the Navigation Act of 1651, 1651. requiring aU colonial exports to England to be carried in ships owned and operated by EngUshmen; European prod ucts were to be taken to the colonies only in English ships or in ships of the exporting country. This act was intended especiaUy to destroy the Dutch predominance in the carry ing trade and it helped to bring on the Anglo-Dutch war, which CromweU brought to a victorious close in 1654. The law was not, however, strictly enforced as against the Dutch MERCHANTS AND POLITICIANS 181 traders in Virginia, and, though CromweU was interested in commercial expansion, there was no important legisla tion on colonial trade during his protectorate. The most important result up to the accession of Charles Makers of H was not any particular piece of legislation, but the growth policy. of an influential group of merchants who knew what they ^"cha'ats wanted and a group of politicians with simUar ideas about politicians. commercial pohcy. Whether from motives of patriotism or from a regard to their own fortunes, these men adjusted them selves easUy to the poUtical changes of the Restoration. Several of them sat in the Convention ParUament of 1660 which reestabUshed the monarchy. The work of these men was not spectacular, but they laid the foundations of an American poUcy which lasted until the colonies became independent. Two men especiaUy prominent among the experts consulted by the government were Martin NoeU and Thomas Povey, both hard-headed business men, chiefly interested in the West Indies. Among the politicians who took special interest in commercial and colonial poUcy, one of the most influential was Sir George Downing, a nephew of John Winthrop and a graduate of Harvard. From New England, Downing found his way back to England by way of the West Indies and before long was holding responsi ble positions in Cromwell's government, including that of ambassador to HoUand. This last appointment he managed to keep after the Restoration and he also distinguished him- seU by betraying some of his old Puritan associates. Not withstanding this unpleasant business, he was certainly able and efficient, whether in executive business or in shaping legislation. Among the men "higher up " who were interested in trade expansion were Lord Clarendon, Lord Ashley, and the King himself. Almost immediately after the King's return a committee of the Privy CouncU was set to work on American prob lems. A few weeks later, the House of Commons appointed 182 IMPERIALISM AND SELF-GOVERNMENT The acts of trade, 1660-1673. Colonial trade in English ships. Colonial exports. "Enumer ated articles." a committee of its own, headed by Downing, "to consider of encouraging and regulating the manufacture, both of new and old wool, and navigations in EngUsh bottoms." Among the other members were several prominent poU- ticians, "aU the merchants," and aU the representatives from the seaport towns. The committee worked rapidly and in a Uttle more than a month after its appointment, the Navigation Act of 1660 had been passed by both houses and approved by the King. This seems Uke hasty work, but it was reaUy the ripe fruit of a discussion which had been going on for many years. This first statute was soon foUowed up by others, of which the most important were the Staple Act of 1663 and the Colonial Duty Act of 1673. During the next hundred years, this legislation was devel oped in detaU, modified at certain points, and systematized; but the fundamental principles were worked out by the merchants, economists, and statesmen of the Restoration. The first essential principle was that colonial trade, both import and export, was henceforth to be reserved ex clusively for EngUsh ships; in order to be considered EngUsh, a ship must be EngUsh buUt, EngUsh owned, and manned by a crew of which the master and three fourths of the men were EngUsh. The purpose of this regulation was to ex clude foreign competition; the English colonists shared in this monopoly of trade, as did also the Irish; Scotch ships were, however, regarded as foreign; though, under the common law as interpreted by the courts, Scotch seamen might be counted as EngUsh because they also were subjects of the EngUsh King. The second principle embodied in the acts of trade was that of making England the distributing point for certain colonial products. These "enumerated articles," of which the most important were tobacco and sugar, were not to be sent directly to continental Europe, but were first to be landed in a British port, from which, after the payment of THE ACTS OF TRADE 183 customs duties, they could be reshipped to the Continent. The law did not prevent the shipment of any of these articles from one EngUsh colony to another, and this left the way open for a good deal of Ulegal trading. New England ship pers, for instance, would take Virginia tobacco to New England; and, with the connivance of easy-going officials, reship it directly to continental Europe, escaping the payment of Enghsh duties and underbidding the EngUsh merchant. To check this practice and incidentaUy to se cure some revenue, ParUament passed in 1673 an act requir ing shippers of tobacco and other enumerated articles from one colony to another to pay a smaU export duty. The Ust of enumerated articles was short at first and affected only the Chesapeake colonies and the West Indies. No New England products were then included. During the next hundred years, however, the Ust was considerably extended. Having shut out foreign ships from the colonial trade staple Act and required certain colonial exports to go through Eng- ° * 3' Ush ports, Parliament next undertook, through the Staple Colonial Act of 1663, to regulate the importation of European goods ""P01*3, into the colonies, thus securing an enlarged market for Enghsh manufactures, or, in case of goods produced in con tinental Europe, giving the middleman's profits to Eng lish merchants. AU goods of European production, with a few exceptions, had to be shipped to the colonies from Eng lish ports. The exceptions are, however, of some interest be cause they show that whUe the government was restricting colonial enterprise in some directions, it was willing to en courage it in others. One such exception was salt for the fisheries of New England and Newfoundland; and though Ireland was, under this act, treated much Uke a foreign country, provisions, horses, and servants, aU much needed in the plantation colonies, could be sent directly from Irish ports. 1 84 IMPERIALISM AND SELF-GOVERNMENT The pro- Taken as a whole, the acts of trade may be best un people derstood as an appUcation to the EngUsh empire of what is now caUed the protective principle, that is, the protec tion of EngUsh subjects against foreign competition. The empire was treated as an economic whole, so far as possi ble independent of the outside world, in which each part had its particular function to perform. In the case of shipping the protective principle was apphed impartiaUy to EngUsh men on both sides of the Atlantic. In other cases there was a kind of give and take. The Virginians, for instance, had to send aU their tobacco to England, or to some other Eng Ush colony; but in return they were protected against com petition in the EngUsh market. If England as a distribut ing center levied toU on the colonial trade, there was some compensation in the protection afforded by the English navy. Doubtless, when it came to a choice, the interest of the mother country was considered first; but, on the whole, and espe ciaUy in its early development, the system worked no great hardship on the colonies. The problem It was one thing to put this legislation on the statute ment.0" books and quite another reaUy to enforce it. It was assumed at first that the existing colonial governments would do this work; but the results were disappointing. Even royal gov ernors hesitated to enforce unpopular laws; proprietary governors were stiU less satisfactory; worst of aU, from the imperiaUst point of view, were the New England gov ernors, who, being elected annuaUy by the colonists, were much more anxious to please their constituents than to sat isfy a government three thousand mUes away. A few far- seeing men realized these difficulties from the beginning and advocated a thorough reorganization of the colonial gov ernments; but this was not easy at a time when the granting of proprietary provinces seemed a comparatively cheap way of satisfying the King's friends. Meantime, ParUa ment took an important step toward the enforcing of the ADMINISTRATION 185 . Navigation Acts in America by providing, in the Colonial Duty Act of 1673, for colonial coUectors directly responsi ble to the commissioners of customs in England. The new coUectors, however, soon reported that they imperial were not supported by the local authorities. The most ag- coUectors- gressive of these imperial officials was Edward Randolph, who was speciaUy responsible for New England. From his own point of view, Randolph was simply a zealous servant of the Crown, trying to enforce the plain provisions of the law. The New Englanders, however, regarded him as a busy body, interfering in affairs which did not concern him and transmitting iU-natured and unjust reports to his superiors. There was simUar friction in Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina. The statements of Randolph and other coUec tors naturaUy strengthened the aggressive imperiahsts who were working for a reconstruction of the colonial governments. Before long the new poUcy began to take effect, chiefly through privy the recommendations of a series of governmental commit- C0 • Halifax. ginning m 1748, was marked by a serious and partly success ful effort to improve the management of colonial business. As a "colonial office" the board was never satisfactory, Defects largely because it had Uttle real authority. It could recom- system. mend poUcies but could not always secure their adoption, and even when measures were approved by the govern ment no effective means were provided for their execution. The board did not control the appointment or removal of colonial governors and often was not even consulted. Secre taries of state instead of helping to secure colonial officials who would cooperate efficiently with the board often preferred to use such offices to reward personal or partisan services. Important branches of colonial business were handled by 232 THE EMPIRE AND THE COLONIES entirely independent boards. The Admiralty was responsible for the naval defense of the colonies and of their commerce; decisions on questions of trade and revenue were made by the Commissioners of Customs and the Treasury Board. These boards often worked harmoniously enough, but bad organization caused delay and there was always danger of friction. It must be remembered also that the Board of Trade could not give itself up to colonial business. Much of its time was taken up with such topics as the improve ment of British manufactures, the expansion of European trade, and the problems of poor rehef. The English The development of the EngUsh judicial system during this judicial period had a certain influence on American history. The system. r J independence of the courts was one of the great issues fought out in the seventeenth century, and the Act of Settlement (1701) protected the judges from interference by estabUsh- ing the principle of service during good behavior rather than during the King's pleasure. The colonists beUeved that colonial judges should be simUarly independent and were much aggrieved when the home government refused to make them so. The judicial authority exercised by the Privy CouncU in the Tudor and early Stuart periods was for the most part swept away, but a part of it survived, including the right to pass on appeals from colonial courts, the real decision being left to a committee. In one respect, the EngUsh courts had perhaps lost ground during the seventeenth century. Whatever right they might have had in earUer times to set aside acts of ParUament as uncon stitutional was now clearly eliminated. The whole idea of a fundamental law binding even upon Parliament passed out of EngUsh jurisprudence. In the colonies, on the contrary, it gained ground and became one of the characteristic features of American poUtical philosophy. No part of the governmental machinery just described was constructed primarUy for colonial business. It was VARIED OVER-SEAS INTERESTS 233 first and foremost the government of England, and (after Overseas 1707) of Great Britain. IncidentaUy, however, not to say o^tside^f accidentaUy, it had to serve the purposes of government for America. an expanding empire overseas. Of this overseas empire, the American continental colonies were only a part and a far less important part than present-day Americans can easUy reaUze. For a century England had been developing her commerce in Asia, chiefly through the great East India Company, whose original charter was granted by Queen Elizabeth a few years before the founding of Virginia. This company had not as yet much territory; but it had many trading posts in India and monopoly rights in the China trade, and in the direction of these distant activities the company exercised many of the rights of a sovereign gov ernment. Far away as these interests were from America, they have their place in American history. It was partly the desire of the British government to promote the trade of the East India Company which brought on the Boston Tea Party of 1773. More closely related to America were the trading stations of the African coast, where slaves were bought from native traders and shipped to America for the use of Spanish or EngUsh planters. In this trade, the Royal African Company took the lead for many years, though the larger part of the business finaUy went to independent trad ers, including some Americans. Here and there along the African coast were British forts for the protection of trade, though there was no serious attempt to hold territory. The constitutional relations of the American colonies to Lack of an the home government were as varied as their climates and constitution, their economic resources. Even to-day, it can hardly be said that the British Empire has anything that can properly be caUed a constitution; certainly no reaUy imperial consti tution had been worked out in the colonial period of Amer ican history. From some points of view, the colonies were a part of the British realm; in other respects they were 234 THE EMPIRE AND THE COLONIES English and Americanpoints of view. mere appendages of it. According to the charters and the opinions of the highest legal authorities, the rights of the colonists, except perhaps in conquered territory, were pro tected by the common law and statutes declaratory of the common law which had been enacted when the colonies were founded, so far as these were apphcable to colonial condi tions. Later statutes did not take effect overseas unless that was definitely stated in the act. EngUshmen and Americans differed widely about the relation between ParUament and the colonial legislatures. EngUsh lawyers generaUy regarded the American assem bUes as municipal corporations and their legislation as nothing more than municipal by-laws which ParUament could set aside as it saw fit. This theory may have been technicaUy correct but it was almost certain in the end to provoke a conflict with the universal desire of the colo nists for the largest possible measure of self-government. Most American poUticians regarded the colonial assembly as a miniature parUament, having within its own sphere an authority simUar to that of the Parliament at West minster. For the present, however, these questions were not brought to a sharp issue, though the authority of Par Uament was at times exercised to a far-reaching extent and in ways which the colonists found more or less incon venient. [ Nearly everybody recognized the necessity of some one Parhament" authority to regulate the commercial relations of the Brit ish Empire with the outside world, and of its various parts with each other. It was equaUy clear that the only authority available for this purpose was the British Parliament. In this matter of commercial poUcy the pioneer work had already been done and the main principles determined; but during the haU century foUowing the Revolution of 1688 the system was considerably developed. The Navigation Act of 1696 remedied defects in administration which had Colonial COMMERCIAL LEGISLATION 235 been pointed out by EngUsh merchants and colonial offi- Navigation rials. It also estabUshed a system of registration for Eng lish vessels, whether owned in England or in the colonies. In order to insure imperial control of the chartered colo nies, aU governors not directly appointed by the King had to be approved by him. This requirement was enforced in the proprietary provinces though it was in conflict with their charters. In those colonies where the governors were elected annuaUy, the rule was of course impracticable. AU governors had to take oath to enforce the Navigation Acts; neghgence in this respect made them Uable to heavy fines and dismissal from office. FinaUy aU colonial laws at variance with the acts of trade were declared nuU and void. Later statutes developed the commercial system in Later other ways, as, for instance, by extending the Ust of enumer- th? Molasses ated articles which could be shipped to Europe only through Act o£ x^3. EngUsh ports. Among the additions to this Ust were rice, molasses, naval stores, and ship timber; in certain cases trees were reserved for the royal navy, though this reser vation could not be strictly enforced. The most unpopu lar attempt by Parliament to regulate colonial commerce, during this period, was the Molasses Act of 1733. This law attempted to break up one of the most profitable branches of trade carried on by the continental colonies, namely, that of the foreign West Indies. During the preceding quarter century, the colonies from Maryland northward to New England discovered that the British West Indies could not give them as good bargains in sugar and molasses as the French and other foreign islands. The provisions, lumber, and horses of the continental colonies also demanded a larger market than the British islands could give. So the trade of the North American continent with the foreign islands grew steadUy until the powerful West Indian lobby in Lon don appealed to ParUament for the protection of their spe- 236 THE EMPIRE AND THE COLONIES cial interests. In the face of protests from the continental colonies, Parhament imposed prohibitive duties on sugar and molasses imported into those colonies from the foreign West Indies. This act was, however, so directly in con flict with the natural course of trade that it was generaUy disregarded. If strictly enforced it would have been dis astrous to New England and the "bread colonies" of the middle region. Perhaps the chief interest of the Molasses Act is that it shows the peculiar importance of the sugar islands in the estimation of British statesmen. More than any other colonies, they hved up to the orthodox theory that a colony should devote itself to producing staples for the mother country. Regulation EngUsh manufacturing interests were steadUy growing, industry. an(i under their influence ParUament watched closely any colonial industries which might possibly compete with them. In 1699 the manufacture of woolens in the colonies was discouraged by prohibiting their export from one colony to another. In 1732 the London Company of Felt Mer chants induced ParUament to limit the number of appren tices who could be employed by colonial hat makers. In the iron industry, the colonists were encouraged to ship iron ore; but a law of 1750 prohibited aU but the more rudi mentary forms of iron manufacture. Probably these restric tions did no great harm in this early stage of American development, and it is only fair to remember that Parlia ment was quite as ready to encourage some industries as to check others. The production of naval stores, for in stance, was encouraged by bounties; and regulations which caused hardship were sometimes repealed or modified. This was done in the case of South CaroUna rice, which, though placed on the Ust of "enumerated articles" in 1750, was subsequently taken off to the extent of aUowing it to be shipped to southern Europe. From commerce and manufactures, Parliament ex- PARLIAMENT AND THE COLONIES 237 tended its control to colonial coinage, currency, and bank- Coinage, ing, on the ground that imperial, as weU as local, interests andTanking. were involved, more particularly those of British merchants. The coinage act of 1707 enacted into law the provisions of a previous royal proclamation, fixing the rates at which foreign coins should be accepted in terms of EngUsh money, thus estabUshing a uniform rule in place of the conflicting action of the various colonies. When English merchants complained of the inflation of the colonial currency by succes sive issues of paper money, the home government first tried to remedy the evU by instructions to the governors and by disapproving colonial laws; later, Parhament took the matter up and in 1751 forbade the issue of paper money by the New England assemblies except under certain conditions. A few years earUer, ParUament legislated out of existence the so-caUed "land bank" of Massachusetts, a scheme for the issue of notes based on mortgages. Another measure passed at the suggestion of British merchants was the act of 1732 to facUitate the coUection of debts due by Americans to British creditors. Parliament also promoted the interests of colonial commerce by estabUshing a general post office in America and passing a law for the suppression of piracy in American waters. Parliament was, therefore, a real legislature for the Unxks of whole empire. Yet there were some important things which mentary ParUament refrained from doing. Customs duties in Amer- gl ica were left mainly to the colonial legislatures, which, un like our present state legislatures, could levy duties on both exports and imports. Now and then some zealous official in England or America proposed to raise a larger revenue in the colonies by means of parUamentary duties or a stamp tax, but the cautious Whig statesmanship of Walpole, New castle, and their associates prevented any such action. The Post Office Act of 17 10 did indeed refer to the raising of revenue, and some objection was made to it on that 238 THE EMPIRE AND THE COLONIES Restrictionson colonial legislation. Royal in structions. Disallowance of colonial statutes. account, but the colonists did not generaUy consider it as a revenue measure. ParUament was equaUy cautious about elaborate schemes for remodeling the colonial govern ments. Though many influential officials favored the complete eUmination of the charters, and bills for this purpose were repeatedly introduced, none was actuaUy put through. Meantime the executive department of the British government was limiting considerably the lawmaking of the American assembUes. Royal instructions to the gover nors guided them in the exercise of their veto power; pro vincial laws were disaUowed by the Privy CouncU, which also declared invahd colonial statutes held to be contrary to the principles of EngUsh law. The governor's instructions about legislation were numerous. He was forbidden, for example, to approve finaUy any laws which diminished the King's prerogative, made paper money a legal tender, dis criminated in favor of colonial as against EngUsh shipping, or interfered with the importation of convicts and slaves. Some bUls the governor was not aUowed to approve at all; others he could pass only with a "suspending clause," pro viding that they should not take effect until approved by the Crown. These instructions were not always obeyed, but on the whole they did seriously limit the freedom of the colonial assembUes and caused much discontent. A biU once signed by the governor, without a "sus pending clause," became law; but a copy had to be sent to England, where it was examined by the Board of Trade, which, after getting advice from the law officers of the Crown or their own special counsel, prepared its recommendation to the Privy CouncU, either for or against the law. In the latter case, the law was generaUy disaUowed, or repealed; and this actuaUy happened in hundreds of cases. In rec ommending the disaUowance of colonial laws the Board of Trade usuaUy acted on carefuUy considered principles. GeneraUy speaking, laws were repealed because they were CHECK ON COLONIAL LAWS 239 not in harmony with the EngUsh law or with the royal pre rogative, because they affected unfavorably the economic interests of the mother country, or because they conflicted with fundamental imperial poUcies in administration. A few examples wUl show how these principles were apphed. Acts providing for triennial or biennial elections were re jected because they took from the governor his freedom to summon and dissolve assembUes as he saw fit. Other laws were disaUowed because they interfered with the King's revenue from quitrents, discriminated in favor of the ship ping of a particular province, or authorized excessive issue of paper money. Often the action of the board seems quite reasonable, as when it condemned intolerant legislation against the Quakers, or prevented attempts by one colony to regulate trade without due regard to the interests of its neighbors. At other times, the board showed Uttle ap preciation of American conditions and so aroused a spirit of resentment, which was expressed later in several clauses of the Declaration of Independence. Closely connected with the disaUowance of colonial laws judicial was the judicial action of the Privy CouncU whUe sitting theMvy as a court of appeal in colonial cases. These appeals came Council. not only from the royal provinces but also from the char tered colonies, whose charters expressly declared that legis lation must, so far as possible, be in harmony with EngUsh law. Colonial laws were sometimes set aside on the ground that they were in conflict with the laws of England and there fore nuU and void. In other words, the Privy CouncU was acting somewhat as the United States Supreme Court now does when a state law is declared unconstitutional. In the present system of the United States, the federal imperial government is not confined to the District of Columbia cSfes" e but operates through its agents in the individual states. In a simUar way, the British imperial government was made up partly of officials in London and partly of imperial 240 THE EMPIRE AND THE COLONIES Royal governors. Colonial control of imperial agents. agents in the colonies. The comparison does not, however, hold good completely, because most of the colonial gov ernors were themselves representatives of the central govern ment rather than of the people whom they governed. By 1702 aU the West Indian and continental colonies had royal governors except Connecticut, Rhode Island, Penn's colonies on the Delaware, and the Carolinas. During the next half century, the Baltimore famUy recovered its con trol of Maryland; but this departure from imperial poUcy was offset by the transformation of the Carolina proprietor ship into the two royal provinces of North and South Caro lina. When Nova Scotia was finaUy conquered it was at once made a royal province. In 1732 Georgia was given temporarUy to a phUanthropic corporation, the "Trustees," but with the definite understanding that after twenty-one years it was to come under the direct control of the Crown. In aU these provincial governments, the governor was pri marUy an agent of the Crown; the councUors also were royal officials, except in Massachusetts. Even proprietary gov ernors had become imperial agents, since they had to be approved by the Crown and give security for the due per formance of the duties imposed on them by ParUament. The presence of royal governors and councUors meant not only control of executive poUcies but also a check on lawmaking and the administration of justice. Every law passed by the representatives had to be approved by the councUors as weU as by the governor. The judges were appointed by the King, either directly or through the gover nor acting with the advice and consent of the councU. Gov ernor and councU together also acted as a court of appeal in civU cases. Every one of these officials was ultimately dependent on the Crown for his continuance in office. Nevertheless, even officials appointed by the imperial government were influenced by pubUc opinion in the prov inces which they governed. Most councUors and judges GOVERNORS AND ASSEMBLIES 241 were permanent residents in their respective colonies and so bound by many ties of sympathy and interest with then- neighbors. This was true also of some governors, and there were few even of the adventurer type who were quite in different about popular approval. The acknowledged right of the assembly to grant or refuse money gave it anotiier hold on the governor which he could not weU shake off. This was especiaUy true when, as in a majority of the colo nies, the governor's salary was granted only for a limited term of years, sometimes for one year only. Many a governor was puzzled to choose between the home government, the "master" who gave him his commission, and his sec ond "master," the provincial assembly, which gave him his pay. Even the most conscientious governor might hesitate to oppose an assembly which controUed the appro priations necessary for the ordinary conduct of government or for mUitary defense. The result of aU this pressure was that a good deal of executive authority was taken from the governor and transferred to officers and committees appointed by the assembly. The control of provincial funds, for in stance, was often intrusted to treasurers named either by act of assembly or by the lower house alone. This weakening of the prerogative element in the pro- Special vincial governments emphasized the need of other impe- ^ndes. rial agents less affected by local interests. So in each colony there developed side by side two groups of officials, corre sponding roughly to the state and federal officers of the pres ent day. In Massachusetts, for instance, the governor had certain responsibUities in connection with the Navigation Acts; but the home government depended primarUy upon a royal coUector, appointed by the Commissioners of Customs in England and working under the supervision of an impe rial surveyor-general. Again, since provincial courts with local juries could not be trusted to convict illegal traders, imperial courts of admiralty were created to try such cases. 242 THE EMPIRE AND THE COLONIES Difficultiesof overseas administration. Colonial agents. Imperial piracy courts were also organized to deal with a serious evU about which colonial opinion was sometimes very lax. It is hard to say how efficient this imperial machinery was as compared with corresponding agencies at the present time, because difficulties of communication were then in conceivably greater. To-day a question may be sent by a subordinate officer to his chief several thousand miles away and an answer given in the course of a single day. Two hundred years ago, the British government had to wait several months for information about conditions in Virginia or Massachusetts. Before a decision could be sent to the colony, on the basis of this information, aU the con ditions might have been radicaUy changed. UntU 1755 there was no regular mafl service and no one could teU when letters would arrive at their destination. Besides the ordi nary chances of wind and weather, there was always the pos- sibUity of loss by shipwreck, enemy privateers, or pirates. Doubtless many officials were incompetent, lazy, or corrupt; but any fair judgment must take into account these physi cal handicaps which no body of men, however efficient, could hope to overcome. It is on the whole remarkable that this colonial system of the eighteenth century should have worked as weU as it did. While imperial interests in America were safeguarded by royal officials, the colonists also had their spokesmen in London. These colonial agents were generaUy appointed by -formal acts of assembly, requiring the consent of the governor and council, as weU as the representatives; but in any case they usuaUy reflected pubUc opinion in the colony. Though not entitled to a seat in Parliament, like the territorial dele gates in the present American Congress, a colonial agent could, and frequently did, present the claims of his constit uents in formal hearings before the Board of Trade. It was also his business to watch the proceedings in Parliament COLONIAL COMMERCE 243 and use his influence against legislation which seemed likely to injure the interests of his colony. These agents were often surprisingly successful in their efforts to influence the action of the home government. It was in the work of a colonial agent that Benjamin Franklin received some of his early training. The poUtical ties which bound the colonists to the mother The com- country were certainly very important, but there were other ^^. connections scarcely less significant which linked the Old World with the New. EspeciaUy far reaching was the influence of commerce. The closest economic relations of the colonies, other than those which they developed with each other, were naturaUy with England. First of aU, it Colonial was from England that they received the greater part of ^mmerce their manufactured goods. This was not merely because England. the acts of trade required aU European products, with few exceptions, to be shipped from EngUsh ports. It was largely the result of natural forces, — a common language, personal associations, the relatively high development of English manufactures, and the favorable situation of England as a base for transatlantic commerce. The development of domestic manufactures for the household and the local market was fairly general; but they would probably not have advanced very far in this period, even if there had been no restrictive acts of Parliament. Trade and agri culture seemed to offer greater incentives for the investment of capital. Undoubtedly there was much smuggling, in America as elsewhere, and the products of continental Europe, such as dry goods and wines, were frequently brought in without entering them at English ports. European goods were also smuggled in from the foreign West Indies. We shaU never know just how large this irregular trade was; but the bulk of the manufactures imported probably came from England in the regular way. 244 246 THE EMPIRE AND THE COLONIES Commerce of the plantation colonies. English merchantsandAmerican planters. Tradeof the northern colonies. New England. In other respects the trade relations of the colonies varied widely. The southern and West Indian plantations had the closest connections with England, to which they sent their sugar and tobacco; the rice planters of South Carolina had a somewhat wider range because they could ship directly to southern Europe. The fleets which carried this commerce were large. In 1692, a British official state ment showed that in less than six months 136 ships with more than 2000 seamen had entered EngUsh ports from Vir ginia and Maryland. In 1706, in the midst of Queen Anne's War, Robert Quary, the royal surveyor-general of customs, wrote of a fleet from the tobacco plantations consisting of nearly three hundred saU. The plantation colonies were also largely dependent on English shipping; comparatively few of the ships which made up the great tobacco fleets were owned in Virginia and Maryland. NaturaUy the relations between the planters and the EngUsh merchants were very close. The London merchant was the planter's selling agent for tobacco, and also his pur chasing agent for EngUsh goods. Often the tobacco sold was not sufficient to pay for the purchases made and so to a large extent the planters were doing business on borrowed capital. Some EngUsh merchants dealt with the planters through "factors," or agents, in America, many of whom in the eighteenth century were Scotchmen. Sometimes English merchant famUies were represented in the colonies by younger sons, who if prosperous became members of the planter aristocracy. NaturaUy enough, the relations between debtor and creditor were not always pleasant. This friction probably had a good deal to do with the subsequent development of revolutionary sentiment, especiaUy in the South. British commercial relations with the northern colonies, though important, were less close than with the South and the West Indies. New England had no staple exports to England at aU comparable with West Indian sugar or FINANCIAL RELATIONS 247 Virginia tobacco. Her fish and lumber were marketed largely elsewhere, chiefly in the West Indies but also in other EngUsh colonies, in the Azores, and in southern Europe. From the American point of view the British government ought to have encouraged the trade with the foreign West Indies instead of trying to check it by the Molasses Act. It was through this trade, Americans said, that they were able to pay for EngUsh manufactures. The English authori ties were, however, less impressed by this argument than by the smuggled European goods which came in through this "back door." Before, as weU as after, the passage of the Molasses Act, sugar and molasses from the foreign West Indies continued to supply the distiUeries of New England, whence rum was sent out for use in the Indian trade and in the purchase of African slaves. In this latter trade, Boston and especially Newport merchants competed with those of the mother country. In trade relations the middle region, The "bread_ with its grain, flour, and provisions, shipped largely to the coomes- West Indies, resembled New England more than the South, though there was a heavy export of furs to England, espe cially from New York. New York and Pennsylvania, Uke Massachusetts, depended largely on the profits of the West India trade to settle their balances with EngUsh merchants. The financial relations of the colonies with England were somewhat hke those developed in the nineteenth century between the western farmers and the "WaU Street" interests. In each case the new settlements naturally de pended on the older communities for capital. The inevi- British table friction between debtor and creditor was comphcated American by unbusinesslike methods and the ocean barrier, which made debtors- mutual understanding more difficult. In many respects the interests of British merchants coincided with those of the colonies; if the latter did not prosper, British trade would suffer. Yet on certain matters there was sharp difference of opinion, as, for instance, in the matter of paper money, 248 THE EMPIRE AND THE COLONIES The Anglican outlook on the colonies. Church es tablishments. regarding which the American farmers of 1750 felt much as the Greenbackers and PopuUsts did in the next century. Americans also resented the British tendency to undervalue the northern colonies as against the West Indian plantations. WhUe British statesmen and merchants were working for a politicaUy unified and economicaUy self-sufficient em pire, some English churchmen hoped to accompUsh a simUar result in ecclesiastical organization. This idea of extending the Church of England was most nearly realized in Virginia and the West Indian plantations, where the AngUcan system was recognized by law and supported by pubUc taxation. Most of the continental colonies, however, were founded either by opponents of the AngUcan Church, Uke the Catho Uc Baltimore famUy in Maryland, the Puritans of New Eng land, and the Quakers in Pennsylvania; or, as in New Jersey and the Carolinas, by proprietors who, though AngUcans themselves, thought it good poUcy to attract dissenters by offering reUgious toleration. So a decided majority of the EngUsh in America were outside the AngUcan fold. At the end of the seventeenth century, vigorous efforts were made to strengthen the AngUcan position. In New England, the Puritans were forced to give the Episcopal Church at least a bare toleration. In New York an act of assembly for the support of a Protestant ministry was so interpreted by the royal governors as to give the AngUcan Church an estabhshment in certain counties. About the same time the overthrow of Lord Baltimore's government paved the way for an AngUcan state church in Maryland. In the first years of the eighteenth century, with the back ing of the proprietors, simUar legislation was secured in the Carolinas, though it was not fuUy enforced in South Caro lina and was almost a dead letter in the northern province. Elsewhere, also, ardent churchmen were hopeful that much could be done through the influence of the royal governors, who were definitely instructed to promote AngUcan interests. THE ANGLICAN CHURCH 249 The officer chiefly responsible for keeping up the connec- The Bishop tion between the AngUcan Church and its members in Amer- of London- ica was the Bishop of London, whose authority was definitely recognized in the instructions to the royal governors. With out his certificate, no clergyman could regularly take a position in the colonies. The exercise of episcopal jurisdiction over people three thousand mUes away was of course difficult. The rite of confirmation, normaUy required for communion in the An gUcan Church, could not be performed in America because no bishops were there to administer it. Similarly candidates for the ministry had to go to England for episcopal ordi nation. Various abuses resulted from this absentee system. Many parishes refused to have ministers inducted in the regular way and preferred to "hire" them from year to year. The Bishop of London tried to overcome some of these diffi culties by appointing commissaries, but they could not per form the rites of confirmation and ordination and their influence was limited. The most logical method of dealing American with the problem, from the AngUcan point of view, was to propped. estabhsh resident bishops in America, and during the last years of Queen Anne, it looked as if this plan might be adopted; but when the Queen died, the Whigs came into power and they decided that an American bishop might make trouble with the dissenters on both sides of the water, in cluding some who were fairly influential. Though much could be said for the measure on reUgious grounds, the dissenters were afraid an American bishop might not be con tent with promoting the spiritual weffare of his own flock. The most active promoters of an American episcopate Society for were the members of a new missionary organization, known thePG?speif as the Society for Propagating the Gospel in Foreign Parts, often referred to more briefly as the S.P.G., which was char tered by WUliam III in 1701. Its founders were leaders in reUgious and philanthropic work and its first head was 2$0 THE EMPIRE AND THE COLONIES Other ecclesiastical relations. TheAmericanQuakers. Thomas Tenison, Archbishop of Canterbury; the Bishop of London was also an active member. Money was raised to send missionaries to America, and some pains were taken to select good men; but these efforts were not always success ful and the church never gave the movement proper financial support. Though the S.P.G. missionaries strengthened con siderably the influence of their church in New England, the middle colonies, and the Carolinas, they could not over come the preponderance of the dissenting elements in those colonies. The comparative weakness of the AngUcan Church at the close of the colonial era was unfortunate from the imperial point of view, for the AngUcan clergy were usually active supporters of the royal prerogative against poUtical radicahsm. In most of the other churches, the connection between the European and American organizations was much less close. The New England CongregationaUsts, for example, had no organic relation with the Independent or Congre gational churches of the old country. Their ministers also, instead of bringing over the traditions of the EngUsh uni versities, as the AngUcan clergy did, were generaUy trained in the colonial coUeges. There was some correspondence, however, between the Puritan clergy in America and their sympathizers in England. The theological writings of such men as Richard Baxter in England and the Mathers in Amer ica were read on both sides of the Atlantic. Prominent EngUsh dissenters made gifts to Harvard CoUege and were frequently helpful in staving off undesirable interference by the home government in New England affairs. For the American Quakers, the EngUsh connection was more important. For protection against the intolerance of their Puritan and AngUcan neighbors they reUed largely on their influential friends in England. The EngUsh organi zation, represented chiefly in such matters by the London Yearly Meeting and the "Meeting for Sufferings," corre- NON-ENGLISH FACTORS 251 sponded constantly with Friends in aU the colonies from New England to the Carolinas and the West Indies, secur ing information about their grievances and then taking up these complaints with the authorities in London. Contact between English and American Friends was also kept up by traveling missionaries, who made extended tours through the colonies. MeanwhUe there was an increasing number of settlers Scotch and whose closest ecclesiastical associations were not with Eng- byterians! land but with other European countries. The Presby terians, who were comparatively weak in 1700 but increased rapidly in numbers and influence during the next half cen tury, owed their inspiration to Scotland and Ireland. Their first notable leader was Francis Makemie, a native of Ire land but of Scottish parentage and education, who made nu merous preaching tours through the colonies. A few years later the great stream of Scotch-Irish immigration set in, bringing many Presbyterian clergy from Ulster, and a few directly from Scotland. These early ministers had been ordained by Scottish or Irish presbyteries, but before long they were organizing presbyteries of their own. Other de nominations maintained more or less formal connections with the Protestants of continental Europe. The Dutch Other Reformed churches of New York continued long after the EngUsh conquest to receive ministers from the mother church of the Netherlands. There were also several Ger man sects — Calvinists, Lutherans, Mennonites, Moravi ans, and others, each representing some contribution of Old World thought and feeling to American life. The French had a number of Huguenot churches, but many of the French were drawn into the Church of England. The status of the Catholic Church was quite different The Catholic from that of any of the Protestant bodies. Except in the w early years of the Maryland colony, the immigration of EngUsh Catholics was smaU. In the eighteenth century 252 THE EMPIRE AND THE COLONIES some Catholics came from Ireland, but this immigration was not large before the Revolutionary era. The Catho Ucs were almost everywhere regarded with suspicion by their Protestant neighbors and suffered from legal disabili ties of one kind or another. This was true even in Mary land, where their pubUc worship was actuaUy forbidden by law. Under these conditions, the CathoUcs could not build up a normal organization until after the Revolution, though a few churches were buUt, including one in PhUadelphia where John Adams attended a service in 1774. Thus rehgion, as weU as poUtics and commerce, estab Ushed associations which counteracted somewhat the effects of physical separation and the American environment, and helped to keep these colonial communities in contact with the European world. It is worth remembering in this con nection that the reUgious revival known as "The Great Awakening," the one movement of its kind, before the middle of the eighteenth century which affected the EngUsh colonies as a whole, owed much of its success to the visit ing EngUsh preacher, George Whitefield, and to the evan- gehstic fervor of Presbyterian ministers who had recently come over from Ireland. intellectual The educated, or reading, class was comparatively smaU on both sides of the Atlantic, but the influence of EngUsh Uterary and inteUeetual movements can be plainly seen in provincial America. Some of the royal governors were men of education and Uterary taste, who gathered about them other people of their own kind. Most of the AngU can, and some of the Presbyterian, clergy had been trained in British universities and contributed largely to the devel opment of education, especiaUy in the southern and mid dle colonies. There were many others, too, in aU the colo nies who had spent more or less time in Europe. New Eng land was probably more satisfied with its own inteUeetual resources than any other region in America, but some of relations. INTELLECTUAL RELATIONS 253 its most representative men had seen a good deal of the Old World. In Massachusetts, for example, any list of outstanding personalities in 1702 should include Joseph Dudley, member of an old colonial famUy but just ap pointed royal governor; Increase Mather, the ablest repre sentative of the Puritan clergy; and Samuel SewaU, judge, councUor, and typical Puritan layman. AU these men had spent more or less time in England. Dudley had been abroad three times, once for nine years; he had served as deputy governor of the Isle of Wight and as a member of ParUament. Among his friends and correspondents was the famous EngUsh essayist, Richard Steele. Increase Mather supplemented his course at Harvard by going to Trinity CoUege, Dublin, where he took his M.A. degree, and later spent three years in London as colonial agent. SewaU's diary records a six months' visit to England in which he showed himself a careful observer of men and manners. In the southern and middle colonies, educa tional contact with the mother country was closer. In the South, the sending of sons or even daughters to England was fairly common, and associations thus formed in youth and early manhood were often kept up in later years. A number of Americans belonged to the Royal Society, The Royal ., , , . 1 .. , Society and or were among its correspondents, mcludmg such men as the inns of the Puritan minister, Cotton Mather; an eighteenth-century Court- Winthrop, who was a professor in Harvard CoUege; WU- Uam Byrd, a rich Virginia planter and councUor; the physi cian, John Lining, of South Carolina; and, last but not least, Benjamin Franklin. One striking feature of American life in the first half of the eighteenth century was the develop ment of the legal profession, and a fair number of the lead ing lawyers were trained in the EngUsh Inns of Court, from which they brought back not only a better knowl edge of the common law but some understanding of Old World thought and manners. 254 THE EMPIRE AND THE COLONIES Englishliterature in America. Europeanphilosophy. The influence of contemporary EngUsh Uterature can be traced in various ways. The colonial newspapers of Boston, PhUadelphia, Williamsburg, and Charleston show considerable interest in the work of such writers as Ad dison and Pope. The Spectator essays of Addison and Steele furnished models for ambitious young writers in America and were reprinted in colonial papers. Pope was perhaps the most admired poet and received, Uke Ad dison, the compliment of imitation. Mather Byles, a Bos ton clergyman, was acclaimed by his admirers as one "who bids fair to rise and sing and rival Pope." In 1727 Byles sent some of his poems to Pope, "to let you see a Uttle of the reputation you bear in these unknown climates." No one iUustrates better than Franklin the effort of intel- Ugent Americans to keep up with European thought. In his brother's newspaper office in Boston, he read Addison and deUberately formed his style on this model. Moving to Philadelphia, he became a bookseUer as weU as a journalist and poUtician, advertising in his paper, The Pennsylvania Gazette, the works of Dryden, Defoe, Swift, Addison, Steele, and Locke. A few years after his arrival in Philadelphia he estabUshed a Library Society, which offered its mem bers not only books of the kind just mentioned but even such foreign classics as the works of Voltaire. By the middle of the eighteenth century some of the young men who were to become the poUtical leaders of independent America, had come under the influence of Euro pean and especiaUy EngUsh phUosophy. The great idealist, Berkeley, visited Rhode Island and made an ardent disci ple of young Samuel Johnson, a graduate of Yale, who after wards became president of King's CoUege (now Colum bia). Johnson tried to popularize his master's teaching, but Berkeleian ideaUsm did not make much headway with the matter-of-fact Americans of that generation. More widely read and influential with young men of a radical BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 255 turn of mind were the principal rationaUstic and deistic writers, and above aU such poUtical phUosophers as Alger non Sidney and John Locke. It was largely on books of this kind that Franklin, John Adams, and Thomas Jef ferson sharpened their wits for the controversies of the next ch. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES Andrews, Colonial Period, chs. VI-IX. Greene, Provincial General America, chs. III-VI, XI, XVII, XVU.I and pp. 194-200. Beck- accounts. er, Beginnings of the American People, 137-160 and ch. V passim. Channing, United States, II, chs. VIII-XVH (for this chapter and the three foUowing). Cambridge Modem History, VI, ch. II. Cross, England and Contempo- Greater Britain, chs. XXXVII-XL. Jenks, E., Parliamentary ^^^ England, chs. III-VI. Maitland, F. W., Constitutional History institutions. of England, Period IV. Robertson, C. G., England under the Hanoverians, 1-85. Cunningham, W., English Industry and Com merce, Modern Times. Beer, G. L., Commercial Policy of England toward the Colonies, Colonial chs. HI-VH. Clarke, M. P., Board of Trade at Work {Am. Hist. g0^1.and Review, XVII, 17-43). Dickerson, O. M., American Colonial mental Government (most complete study of the Board of Trade). Eger ton, H. E., Short History of British Colonial Policy (ed. 1909), bk. II, chs. IV, V. Greene, E. B., Provincial Governor, especiaUy chs. VIII-X. Hertz, G. B., Old Colonial System, chs. II, III. Kellogg, L. P., American Colonial Charter (Am. Hist. Assoc, Report, 1903, 187-341). Root, W. T., Relations of Pennsyl vania with the British Government, especiaUy chs. I- VI. Pownal, T., Administration of the Colonies (by a Uberal provincial governor). Andrews, Colonial Commerce {Am. Hist. Review, XX, 43-03)- Colonial Bell, H. C, West India Trade {ibid., XXII, 272-287). DuBois, commerce. W. E. B., Suppression of the Slave Trade. Phillips, U. B., American Negro Slavery, chs. I-HL Pitman, F. W., British West Indies, especiaUy chs. LX-XII. Bogart, E. L., and Thompson, C. M., Readings in Economic 256 THE EMPIRE AND THE COLONIES Sources on colonialSystem and trade relations. Ecclesiastical relations. Intellectual relations. Socialrelations History of the U. S., pp. 69-81 and ch. IV. CaUender, G. S., Selections from Economic History of the U. S., chs. H, III. Hart, Contemporaries, II, nos. 45-54, 65-68, 73-74. Macdonald, Select Charters, nos. 43, 50. Cross, A. L., Anglican Episcopate in the American Colonies, chs. I-IV. Greene, E. B., Anglican Outlook {Am. Hist. Review, XX, 64-85). Ford, H. J., Scotch-Irish in America, especially chs. XIII, XVI. Jones, R., Quakers in America, especiaUy bk. V, ch. VIII. Cambridge History of American Literature, I, bk. I. Cook, E. C, Literary Influences in Colonial Newspapers. Tyler, M. C, American Literature, II. Puley, I. W., American PhUosophy, The Early Schools, bks. H-IH. Andrews, C. M., Colonial Folkways. CHAPTER XH PROVINCIAL NEW ENGLAND Within the framework of the British Empire, each col- Colonial ony or group of colonies had its own peculiar problems, sectI0naliam' its special customs and points of view. In the provincial America of the eighteenth century, New England had a pecu liarly clean-cut sectional individuaUty which was recognized by friends and enemies alike. Radical poUticians found it convenient to use New England precedents, whUe royal gover nors complained of the spread of "Boston principles" which threatened to undermine the foundations of imperial authority. In the last decade of the seventeenth century, the set- settled area tied area of New England was only a smaU fraction of that Engknd now occupied by this group of states. Vermont was stUl about 169a virgin soU, and Maine, then a part of Massachusetts, was scarcely less so; only three of its towns were thought im portant enough in 1694 to be listed for purposes of taxa tion, and these were aU on the coast within thirty mUes of the New Hampshire line. For practical purposes, New Hampshire meant as yet Uttle more than its short ocean frontage and a back country hardly twenty-five mnes deep. The upper Merrimac vaUey was still in dispute between Massachusetts and New Hampshire and actuaUy occupied by neither. From the Merrimac southward and westward around the coast, the colonists were stiff nearly aU within fifty nines of the sea, though a slender line of settlement went up the Connecticut River across Massachusetts, grow ing very thin at its northern end. Central Massachusetts, as weU as the Berkshire country and the adjoining section 257 258 PROVINCIAL NEW ENGLAND Population. Growthcheckedby war. | Small im migration. of Connecticut, was stiU waiting for a new generation of New England pioneers. In 1695 the Massachusetts legis lature mentioned eleven frontier towns as requiring special protection against the Indians. Three of these towns were in Maine and one in the Connecticut vaUey; the others were within fifty mUes of Boston. The rough guesses available for this period indicate a population of about eighty thousand whites in the whole of New England — more than half of them in Massachu setts. The regions which counted for most in population and wealth were the district about Cape Ann, including Salem and Ipswich; the basin of Boston harbor; the shores of Narragansett Bay and Long Island Sound; and the lower end of the Connecticut vaUey. In Massachusetts, nearly half the province taxes were paid by towns within the present municipal and suburban area of Boston. For more than three decades after the outbreak of King William's War in 1689, the expansion of New England was seriously checked by border warfare. Even after the treaty of Utrecht, there were some destructive Indian raids, especiaUy on the Maine frontier. During the next quarter century, conditions were more favorable; but Thomas Hutchinson, the governor and historian of Massa chusetts, estimated at the close of the provincial period that the population of New England would have been larger by 200,000 "if the French had been driven from Canada an hundred years ago." This was not the only reason for the comparatively modest growth of New England. To the farmer-immigrants of the eighteenth century, it offered no such agricultural opportunities as a colony Uke Pennsyl vania. The exclusive spirit of New England Puritanism also had some effect in discouraging immigration. For a time it seemed as if there might be a fairly large influx of Scotch-Irish settlers, and several hundred of them did actu aUy settle in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine; NEW ENGLAND EXPANSION 259 but the great majority turned southward to Pennsylvania and beyond. To a larger extent than any other section, the New England of 1760 was inhabited by descendants of the first colonial generation. In spite of aU these handicaps, the population of these Expansion four colonies had increased by 1760 to some point between England. 400,000 and half a miUion. Much of this increase was in the seaboard towns. Boston with about 20,000 inhabitants was stUl much the largest place in New England; but other towns also profited by the growth of seagoing commerce: Portsmouth, in New Hampshire; Salem, in Massachu setts; Newport and later Providence in Rhode Island; New London and New Haven on the Connecticut side of Long , Island Sound. EquaUy important was the movement of population toward new frontiers, westward, northward, and eastward. The descendants of the Puritan pioneers were now founding new communities, stiU largely on the old models, in the central counties of Massachusetts and beyond the Connecticut River in the Housatonic vaUey. Connect icut and Massachusetts people predominated in this Berk shire region, but they met here a few Dutch famUies from the Hudson vaUey. Land speculation helped to stimulate the pioneering movement. With the encouragement of their government, Boston and Salem capitahsts began to invest in "wUd lands," not only within the acknowledged limits of Massachusetts but farther north in territory claimed by New Hampshire. Along with the old type of settlement by organized groups, there came a more individuaUstic kind of pioneering. The settled area of New Hampshire was now graduaUy pushed northward, especiaUy in the Merrimac and Connecticut vaUeys. By the middle of the eighteenth century there were even a few outposts in what is now Vermont. In Maine, which had actuaUy lost ground during the Indian wars, the advance was resumed, though progress was slow. 260 PROVINCIAL NEW ENGLAND Maritime enterprise. The fisheries. Shipbuilding. The pioneer spirit was not limited to the men who went in search of new lands. It was scarcely less evident in those who manned the fishing fleets, developed shipbuUding, and saUed on distant voyages. Like other New England inter ests, the fisheries suffered severely from the colonial wars, as weU as from French competition in time of peace; but the middle years of the eighteenth century brought a new prosperity. It was estimated in 173 1 that five or six thou sand men were employed in this industry. In 1713, a Gloucester sea captain devised a new type of ship, the schooner, which gave the deep-sea fishermen more efficient service than anything they had had before. The mackerel fishery took on a new importance, especiaUy for the West Indian trade, and whaling developed from smaU begin nings into an immense and profitable industry. At first, whales were taken by comparatively smaU boats along the coast; but the European demand for Uluminating oU, whale bone, and other products of this fishery increased rapidly and the development of deep-sea whaling was a natural result. Many places shared in the profits of the business, but the Nantucket sea captains were conspicuously success ful. Before long they and others of their kind were sailing as far north as Davis Strait on the Arctic Circle. ShipbuUding also made great progress — so much so that the first third of the eighteenth century has been caUed the "golden age" of this industry. It was carried on not only in a few centers but aU along the coast. Ships were buUt largely for use by New Englanders; but they were also sold in other colonies, in England, and in the Mediterra nean countries. By 1724 some British buUders found this colonial competition so formidable that they tried to have it checked; but the imperial government was too thoroughly committed to the policy of encouraging English shipping on both sides of the Atlantic. The later development of the industry was less rapid; with the clearing of the forests NEW ENGLAND COMMERCE 261 about the older settlements, lumbering and shipbuUding naturaUy moved northward and the shipyards of the Pis- cataqua region became more important. The shipbuUders were, of course, meeting the demands Trade. of an expanding commerce, and the Boston shipping Usts indicate the character of this trade. During the summer quarter of 1714, 103 ships were cleared for various ports: sixty-one of these were owned in Boston and over two thirds of the whole number belonged to New England ports; ten be longed to other continental colonies, four to the West Indies, one to Ireland, ten to London, and the rest to minor English ports. AU but two of these ships had been buUt in America. There was much more variety in the ports to which they were bound: a Uttle less than a third were going to continental English colonies, most of them south of the Potomac; another third, approximately, were bound for various ports of the British West Indies and Honduras (Barbados and Jamaica were the islands most frequently named); eight were bound for Newfoundland; eight saUed for the Dutch colonies of Surinam and Curacao; the rest were crossing the Atlantic, the majority to English ports, but a few to Portugal and the Portuguese islands. The ves sels which embarked on these long voyages were nearly aU very smaU. Less than one tenth had a tonnage of 100 or over; the largest tonnage was 310 and the next only 200. The cargoes were as varied as the ports of destination. Varied To the mother country, the New Englanders shipped partly their own products — staves, oU, whalebone; partly also the products of other colonies, such as rice and sugar. Lum ber, fish, and horses bulked large in the cargoes shipped to the West Indies. The big items in the trade with the continental colonies were rum and "European goods," with a miscellany of such merchandise as wooden ware, pewter, iron pots, and frying pans. Lists of ships entering port 262 PROVINCIAL NEW ENGLAND show what was coming into Boston from other parts of the world, either for New England consumption or for distribution elsewhere. In 1718, for instance, the lists showed European goods from England, including both Eng Ush manufactures and imports from the Continent; wine from the Azores and the Madeiras; grain, flour, and other provisions from the middle colonies; sugar, molasses, rum, and cotton from the West Indies. From Ireland came linen, some provisions, and servants. Newport. Next to Boston among the New England ports was Newport. In the early years of this period, it attracted the attention of royal officials as a favorite resort for pirates and privateers, the two employments tending to shade into each other. In time of war the privateer had a legal warrant for preying on commerce, and when peace came, such craft sometimes found ordinary trade too tame. In The slave the first half of the eighteenth century, Newport became the chief base in North America for the African slave trade. The round of this trade began with rum manufactured from West Indian molasses. What foUowed may be Ulus- trated from the correspondence of some of these New port merchants. In 1755, for instance, the firm of WU- kinson and Ayrault sent Captain David Lindsay to the African coast, where he was to exchange his cargo for gold and slaves. With this human freight he was to saU for Barbados or St. Christopher, where the slaves were to be sold, provided he could get an average price of twenty- seven pounds for them aU, "great and smaU." If satis factory bargains could not be made at the first mentioned islands he could try Jamaica. The captain did this busi ness on commission, getting among other things five slaves for his own share. A letter written from the Guinea coast several years earUer shows how Uvely the competition some times was. The shipmaster reported to his Newport em ployer that there never had been "so much Rum on the NEW ENGLAND MERCHANTS 263 coast at one time before," but "slaves is very scarce," so much so that the "rum men" were "ready to devour one another." Newport was also, like Boston, deeply involved in the foreign sugar trade. The profits of this trade, legal and Ulegal, were building Typical up at Boston, Newport, Salem, and elsewhere a rich mer- merchants. chant class of decidedly cosmopohtan interests. A fairly typical Boston merchant of this period was Thomas Amory. Amory. Born in Ireland of EngUsh parents, he spent his childhood in South CaroUna, where his father was a prominent mer chant and poUtician. The boy was then sent to England for formal schooling and some practical business training from a French merchant in London. He then went to the Azores, and finaUy set up in business there for himself, incidentaUy serving as consul for the EngUsh, French, and Dutch. WhUe stiU a young man, he moved to Boston, where he interested himself largely in the trade with the Carolinas and the West Indies. Another prominent colo nial merchant was Peter FaneuU. Born in New York of Faneuil Huguenot stock, he went into business in Boston, becoming a shipowner, importer, and commission merchant, with cor respondents in England, France, Portugal, and Spain. He beUeved in his right to "fair trade," even if it happened to be in violation of the Navigation Acts; there was also the slave trade, in which he had a considerable interest. He was public-spirited, however, and gave to his feUow citizens the famous FaneuU HaU. Such men as these inevitably changed the tone of Boston society, though the old famUies were still in the majority. The merchant group at Newport was more hetero- The New- geneous than that of Boston. Among its wealthy and p0 group prominent famUies there were not only English but West Indians, Irish, Scotch, French (Huguenots), Germans, and Jews from Spain and Portugal. The Redwood famUy illustrates some interesting aspects of Newport society. 264 PROVINCIAL NEW ENGLAND Abraham Redwood, senior, was born in England; but he was interested in the West Indian trade and later became a sugar planter in Antigua, one of the Leeward Islands. About 1715 he came to New England, settling first at Salem and then at Newport. When he died, in 1729, his son inherited not only his father's commercial interests but also his sugar plantation with its numerous slaves. His corre spondence shows the usual exchange of lumber, horses, and misceUaneous goods, chiefly for sugar; now and then negro servants are mentioned. His London agents, some of them influential in colonial politics as weU as in trade, sold his sugar and fiUed, or tried to fiU, his orders for various articles of use and luxury. He also showed some pubUc spirit The famous Redwood Library in Newport began with a gift from him and a bunding site for it was given by another Uberal citizen. New The intercolonial wars at the beginning of this period indusSy. stimulated manufactures somewhat, too much so accord ing to some overzealous officials. Even the Woolens Act of 1699, intended to protect English manufactures, did not whoUy discourage these New England enterprises. When peace came, however, most people there, as in other colonies, depended mainly upon England for the better grades of manufactured goods. The two manufactures of prime importance which got much beyond local markets were ships, with their accessories, and rum. Some indus tries were encouraged by colonial assembUes; but most of the avaUable capital found more attractive outlets in foreign and intercolonial trade. The These developing communities found the currency prob- proHem'. km a difficult one. One reason why they were so sensi- money. tLVe aDout the West Indian trade was because they de pended on it so largely for Spanish money, the "pieces of eight, " which they used in their own business and in settling accounts with the EngUsh merchants. Experiments with PAPER MONEY 265 paper money were general during the provincial period. Sometimes, as in the case of the first Massachusetts issue of 1690, the poUcy was adopted to meet speciaUy heavy war expenditures. Beginning in a fairly conservative way, successive assemblies became more and more reckless until in 1748 it took eleven or twelve Massachusetts shiUings in paper to make one in EngUsh sterling. Rhode Island was even worse off. The evUs of inflation were felt not only by British cred- Opposition itors but also by many of the New England merchants. In 1749, this conservative party, taking advantage of a grant made to Massachusetts in compensation for its outlay in "King George's War," and in spite of opposition from the farmers and smaU traders, induced the General Court to redeem the paper in specie. In 1731, the governor of Rhode Island stretched his authority by attempting to veto a paper-money biU, but he was overruled and lost his place in the next election. One of his successors declared op- timisticaUy that "if this colony be in any respect happy and flourishing, it is paper money and a right application of it that hath rendered us so"; but the situation finaUy be came so serious that the leading business men of the colony signed a petition asking the home government to intervene. In 1751, Parhament restricted the issue of paper biUs by the Pariia- New England governments; such biUs were not to be made Stervention, a legal tender. This paper-money discussion brought out I751- clearly the division of the colonists themselves on certain economic issues. The conservative merchant class, though none too scrupulous about obeying the acts of trade, some times found in the home government a convenient protection against radical majorities. The growing wealth of the towns showed itself in more Wealth comfortable ways of living. Some of the best colonial ar- WayTtfn chitecture dates from the latter part of this period. Even Uvin8- the better houses were stUl generaUy of wood, but some sub- 266 PROVINCIAL NEW ENGLAND stantial brick houses were buUt, especiaUy in Boston. Eng Ush models were foUowed to a considerable extent both in private and pubUc buUdings. Furniture became more pre tentious, and costume, imitating the EngUsh fashions, was often luxurious, as may be seen from contemporary por traits of New England dignitaries. Governor Belcher, a Massa chusetts man by birth, ordered from London a suit of "very good silk" "trimmed rich." Fashionable famUies expected to have their servants dressed in style. One runaway "Eng lish manservant," described in the Boston Newsletter of 1742, wore a blue coat with black velvet buttons, a silk jacket, and "a fine white shirt with ruffles." An EngUsh traveler wrote of Boston in 1740 that both "ladies and gentlemen dress and appear as gay, in common, as courtiers in Eng land on a coronation or birthday." Economic Such luxuries were of course confined to a compara tively smaU class, chiefly in the towns, though the "Narra gansett planters" of Rhode Island had also a reputation for generous Uving. The owners of the older farms were strug gling hard, with a soU none too good to begin with and now losing its fertUity after a century of hard use. For the frontiersman, conditions were more hopeful, but luxu ries were generaUy beyond his reach. In the towns, too, there were aU grades of society — prosperous merchants and lawyers, smaU tradesmen, mechanics, and domestic servants. Indentured servants came in from England and Ire land, though not in such numbers as in the colonies farther Slavery. south. Prosperous famUies, especiaUy in the larger towns, often had one or more negro slaves and there was no general feeling against the practice, though a few protests were heard. Rhode Island had the largest proportion of negroes and the Narragansett planters used slave labor more than any other part of rural New England. Gener aUy speaking, the smaU farmers of New England could not use negro slaves to much purpose. NEW ENGLAND POLITICS 267 In their poUtical problems, aU the New England colo- New nies had some experiences in common. They aU had to pcjftS. adjust themselves more fuUy than before to the principle ££5Sexas. of imperial control. Whether they kept their old charters or had to accept royal governors, they were aU vitaUy concerned with such unpleasant phenomena as acts of trade, royal customs coUectors, and occasional appeals from their courts to the Privy CouncU. To officials in London, New England seemed the bad cluld of the imperial famUy, keeping up irregular habits acquired in the earUer years of lax disci pline and straying willf uUy from the course of legitimate com merce, when there was a fair chance of not being caught. Meanwhile, New Englanders complained of uninteUigent interference with the natural course of trade. Why should ParUament try to force their West Indian trade into the nar row limits of the British sugar islands when better markets could be had elsewhere? Why, if their own representa tives considered paper money a proper remedy for local troubles, should Privy CouncU and ParUament meddle with matters much better understood by people on the ground? Questions Uke these entered into aU New England poUtics, from New Hampshire to Connecticut. AU these colonies also carried over from the seventeenth century the essential framework of local government. Their town meetings con tinued as before to manage those interests which came nearest to the average man, and they foUowed much the same old paths of law and custom. In other respects, the New England colonies did not Se]f. stand on an equal footing. In Connecticut and Rhode Is- fj0^™611* land, which kept their old charters, self-government was necticut and not limited to the towns. The property holders continued island. to elect every year their own governors, assistants, and representatives in the assembly or lower house. Other execu tive and judicial officers were appointed by the assembly. The governor had Uttle formal authority; he could not, 268 PROVINCIAL NEW ENGLAND Attackson the charters. Dummer'sdefense. for instance, veto bills passed by the colonial legislature. Nevertheless, these Uttle repubUcs often showed remarkable steadiness in supporting leaders whom they trusted. Con necticut, with its comparatively homogeneous and mainly rural population, had only two governors between 1707 and 1 741. One was an influential Congregational minister; the other had been thoroughly tested as selectman, justice of the peace, representative, assistant, judge of the Superior Court, and deputy governor. Rhode Island society was more complex and its poUtics less steady, but even here one governor served continuously for twenty-eight years. This man, Samuel Cranston, had to steer the ship of state through troubled waters in the face of severe criticism by the home government; but he evidently satisfied his con stituents better than most present-day pohticians are able to do. The independence of these chartered colonies was re peatedly threatened. In 1701, the Board of Trade drew a long indictment against the chartered colonies, giving special attention to Rhode Island, with its bad reputation for ille gal trade and even piracy. The remedy proposed was an act of Parliament revoking the charters. BiUs for this purpose were introduced more than once, and in 1721 the board took the matter up again. In 1721 Jeremiah Dummer, the agent of Massachusetts, pubhshed a skillful defense of the New England charters against the usual charges of arbi trary government, lack of interest in the national defense, and disregard of English law. He insisted that the New Englanders were not aiming at independence, that their prosperity depended on then free governments, and that a generous poUcy would also be best for the mother country. Doubtless, he said, Parliament had the "power" to re voke the charters, but this was a question of "right." "And shaU not the Supream Judicature of aU the Nation do right?" Whether these particular arguments were effective MASSACHUSETTS POLITICS 269 setts under the second charter. or not, both Rhode Island and Connecticut weathered the storm and kept their charters. In Massachusetts and New Hampshire conditions were Massachu- quite different, since they both had royal governors. The problem which the Massachusetts leaders, especiaUy, now set themselves to solve was how far they could manage, within the forms of their monarchical constitution, to keep the substance of power. Even the second charter gave Massa chusetts a decided advantage over the ordinary royal govern ment. The members of the councU, which was also the upper house of the legislature, had been suggested in the first place by the friends of the colony in London and were chosen there after by the two houses of the legislature on a joint baUot. Since the lower house, chosen by the voters in the towns, was more numerous than the councU, the former had a de cided advantage in the choice of new councUors; the elec tion was, however, subject to the governor's veto. The charter also deferred to the old traditions of the colony by requiring annual elections to the General Court, or leg islature, and giving it the right to elect a number of officers, including the province treasurer. Even in the appointment of royal governors, the Brit ish government was often wUUng to consider local conditions. Sir WiUiam Phips, the first governor appointed under the new charter, was a native of the province who had been sug gested by the provincial agents themselves. Then after a few years under the administration of a Ueutenant governor who belonged to one of the old Massachusetts famUies, the province was put in charge of a prominent British noble man of hberal principles, who was willing to denounce the Stuart kings as vigorously as any New Englander and even attended the Thursday lectures of the Puritan clergy. In 1702, Joseph Dudley, another Massachusetts man, was selected. Though extremely unpopular during the Andros regime, he was now able to secure testimonials from the The royal governors. 270 PROVINCIAL NEW ENGLAND Constitutional con flicts. The salaryquestion Puritan clergy of London and even from such an influen tial personage as Cotton Mather, minister of the Second Church of Boston. Dudley's first successor was an Eng Ush colonel whose grandfather was a Puritan minister; the second was the Uberal son of a Uberal bishop; the third was a wealthy Massachusetts merchant who had several times been elected councUor and at the time of his appoint ment was the London agent of the House of Representatives; the fourth was a lawyer who had Uved several years in Massa chusetts and won pubUc confidence to the extent of being appointed counsel for the province in a boundary dispute. In short, most, if not aU, of these men took office with some thing in their experience or point of view which should have helped them to understand local problems. The comparative care with which the Massachusetts governors were chosen did not save them from frequent conflicts with their assembUes. This was due partly, no doubt, to the personal peculiarities of individual gov ernors, but chiefly to the fact that as agents of the Crown they were obliged to oppose poUcies which the popular lead ers were equaUy determined to carry through. Perhaps the most significant of these issues was the question of tempo rary or permanent appropriations for the governor's salary. The leaders in the House of Representatives were determined that, having lost the power to choose their own governor, they would keep him in check by determining his salary at short intervals. The controversy reached its climax in 1728, when Governor WiUiam Burnet, acting strictly in accordance with his instructions, refused to accept the tem porary grant which the legislature was willing to make, insisting that only a permanent settlement was consistent with his dignity and independence. This independence was just what the popular party did not mean to give him, and he presently died without getting any salary at, aU. His successor brought with him equaUy positive instruc- GOVERNOR AND ASSEMBLY 27 1 tions, but the assembly was stubborn. FinaUy the home government yielded and the governor was aUowed to accept annual grants. Other governmental expenditures were sirmlarly met by detaUed appropriations from year to year, though the effort of the lower house to control the issue of warrants drawn under these appropriations was finaUy given up. The popular party was not always successful. Sue- Governor ceeding governors repeatedly exercised the right to veto councilors. the election of councUors. In this way radical leaders were kept out of the councU, which was fairly conservative during most of the provincial era. The problem for the councUor who wanted to keep his place was how to be popular enough to win the votes of the representatives without being so aggressive as to offend the governor. The system naturaUy tended to keep men of vigorous and independent personaUty out of the councU. Governor Dudley also asserted his right The to approve or disapprove the election of a speaker duly chosen qu^tion. P by the house. The claim was based partly on the old Eng lish custom of presenting the speaker to the King for his approval, and partly on an interpretation of the charter, which gave the governor a veto on aU acts of the General Court. The Enghsh practice had become a mere formality, both in England and in most of the royal provinces; but Dudley and his successor both used their veto, and the home government settled the point in their favor by the "explana tory charter" of 1725. The assembly, being then afraid of more drastic action, submitted with as good grace as possible. Questions of military policy also made trouble between Control of the governor and the representatives. The governors were {5oiicy!y instructed, for instance, to maintain a fort at Pemaquid on the Maine coast. To the assembly, however, this fort seemed too far beyond the existing settlements to be of much value. The necessary appropriations were, therefore, 272 PROVINCIAL NEW ENGLAND NewHampshirepolitics.' Party politics in Massachusetts. refused. Later governors sometimes found that the only way to get money for mUitary purposes was to leave much of the management in the hands of legislative committees. Thus, in spite of royal governors and imperial vetoes, the Massachusetts people did actuaUy to a large extent control their own affairs. Some of the questions which disturbed New Hampshire poUtics were simUar to those in Massachusetts. The smaUer province was, however, at a disadvantage in not having a royal charter. For more than forty years it was unequally yoked with Massachusetts, whose governor was also the chief executive of New Hampshire and was suspected of neglecting the interests of the weaker colony. The actual administration in New Hampshire was generaUy in the hands of a Ueutenant governor, more or less successfuUy directed by his superior in Boston. In 1741 this personal union of the two provinces was given up and a separate governor appointed for New Hampshire. The most permanent line of division in the Massachu setts assembly was doubtless between the "friends of govern ment" and the popular or "country" party; but during the middle years of the eighteenth century, the question of banks and paper money proved no less interesting than the governor's salary. To the average man it seemed an easy matter for the government to make money by the issue of paper bUls, or to reUeve debtors by forming a "land bank" which would lend notes on the security of real es tate; but as business developed, the mercantUe interests came to realize the damage done by an inflated and depreciat ing currency. So when Governor Belcher set himself to fight the "land bank" he-made himself unpopular with the majority of his feUow citizens, but stiff had the backing of many influential people. With this support he was able to secure action by Parliament, putting an end to this Ul- considered enterprise. This same conservative group con- RELIGIOUS DEVELOPMENTS 273 tinued throughout the provincial era and later became the nucleus of the loyalist party in the Revolution. These men of "competent estates" had their own grievances against the home government, but they nevertheless depended on it for support against their radical neighbors. Rehgion stiU played a large part in New England life. Puritan Everywhere except in Rhode Island orthodox Puritanism tabHshments. was the dominant influence and the church had the support of the state to a greater or less extent. When Massachusetts and New Hampshire became royal provinces, they found it necessary to tolerate Episcopalians and other dissenters; but, except in a large town Uke Boston, where there were several congregations, each supporting its own pastor, the in habitants generaUy had to help pay the salaries of the Congre gational ministers. Quakers, EpiscopaUans, and Baptists protested, but for many years without success. SimUar conditions existed in Connecticut, where the old church order was even more strongly intrenched, with no royal governor to interfere. Nevertheless, many influences were at work to weaken the Weakening Puritan system. The growth of commerce increased the puritan indifferent element, which had always existed in the colony. traditlon- Even before the old Massachusetts charter was revoked, representative clergymen were lamenting the decline of reUgious enthusiasm. In order to keep their hold on people who inherited Puritan traditions, but shrank from the severe personal tests required for full communion, the so-caUed Half-Way Covenant was adopted, permitting such persons to share in certain privUeges, including the baptism of their children, by professing a kind of formal orthodoxy and "owning the covenant," without being examined as to their spiritual experience. So besides the large number of people who had no formal membership in the estabUshed churches, there were many "Half-Way" members who could not be counted on to fight vigorously for the old order. It must 274 PROVINCIAL NEW ENGLAND Salem witchcraft, be remembered also that the qualification for voting was now property, rather than church membership. WhUe the Puritan clergy were trying to adjust them selves to the new provincial government, there occurred the strange tragedy of the Salem witchcraft, in which nine teen men and women were hanged by authority of a special court on the charge that they had conspired with the devil to bewitch their neighbors. This was no new thing in the world. Thousands of supposed witches had been executed in England alone during the sixteenth and seventeenth cen turies, and the beUef in the reahty of witchcraft was general among aU kinds of orthodox Christians. The Massachusetts epidemic came, however, at a time when Uberal-minded men were turning away from this particular kind of super stition. Before long there was a sharp reaction and a few years later the provincial legislature voted a pubhc fast in recog nition of the wrong that had been done. IncidentaUy there was sharp criticism of the Puritan leaders who were held responsible for this outbreak of the mob spirit. Just how far the whole affair served to discredit the old rigime is hard to say; but the discussion which foUowed seems to have made for more humane and Uberal thinking. By the end of the seventeenth century, there were some Uberais^The spirited contests between conservative and Uberal elements in the Massachusetts churches. The conservatives were led by Increase Mather and his son Cotton, both ministers of the principal church in Boston. The older Mather was probably the ablest man in the province; his scholar ship and his numerous services to church and state gave him a right to be heard with respect. His son was also a man of ability, but his learning though enormous was pedantic and uncritical, as may be seen in his extraordinary book caUed the Magnolia Christi, a series of essays on New England his tory. Both men were steeped in the theocratic traditions of the Bay Colony, which they felt bound to preserve for Conservatives and Mathers. LIBERAL ELEMENTS 275 future generations. Their opponents would not have seemed especiaUy liberal half a century later, but they proposed certain innovations which the Mathers regarded as dan gerous. A church was organized to promote these ideas, and a few years later the "Uberals" got control of Har vard CoUege. To combat these and other undesirable tendencies, the John wise on Mathers favored a closer organization of the local churches emocracy- under something Uke a Presbyterian constitution. There upon a strong party in the colony attacked the new propos als as contrary to Congregational principles and undemo cratic. This view was ably set forth by John Wise, the same minister who had resisted Andros twenty years before. He argued for Congregationalism not only because it was beUeved to be Scriptural but because democracy was the kind of government which harmonized best with reason and "the Ught of nature." "Power," he said, "is originaUy in the people." No wonder that Wise's books were reprinted half a century later on the eve of the American Revolution. For the moment the Mathers were probably more influen tial than Wise and their plan might have been adopted if Massachusetts had been free to settle such matters for herseff. When, however, it was proposed to caU a synod for the purpose of determining church policies, the British government refused its consent. In Connecticut the situation was quite different. There "Consocia- the Puritan leaders were in complete control and at the Connecticut. critical moment the governor himself happened to be a Con gregational minister. So with church and state working harmoniously together a plan of "Consociation" similar to that advocated by the Mathers was adopted. The same combination of local opposition with imperial Concessions intervention which had defeated the hopes of the Mathers, dissenters. finaUy brought the dissenters not only freedom of worship, but also rehef from the payment of taxes to support the 276 PROVINCIAL NEW ENGLAND Congregational clergy. Neither the Quakers nor the AngH- cans were numerous in New England, though the latter were slowly gaining strength, partly through official encour agement and partly through the efforts of the S.P.G. (page 249). Both, however, were constantly sending com plaints to England, and the unpopularity of the Puritan colonies in official quarters helped these "conscientious objectors" to get a hearing. Under this double pressure, both Massachusetts and Connecticut passed laws providing that church taxes paid by dissenters might be given to ministers of their own kind. This was an important step toward the separation of church and state, but it took about a century more to complete the process. The "Great^ The outstanding event in the reUgious history of pro vincial New England was the "Great Awakening," an ex traordinary reUgious revival which affected all the English colonies on the continent. For New England, it began in Edwards and 1734 with the preaching of Jonathan Edwards in the Uttle Whitefield. town 0f Northampton, Massachusetts. A few years later, his work was reenforced by the great Methodist preacher, George Whitefield, who, though stiU a clergyman of the Church of England, showed Uttle regard for the conventions of that church. Edwards, who has been generaUy recognized as one of the greatest minds America ever produced, was first of aU a thinker, trying to restate the prevailing Calvin istic theology in such a way as to combine the old tenets of divine sovereignty and predestination with a new emphasis on personal accountability and a more passionate zeal for communion with God. Highly inteUeetual as his preaching was, it had also an intensely emotional effect on his audi ences. The less inteUeetual but more popular eloquence of Whitefield reached a stUl wider circle of hearers. Both tried to draw men from the surface aspects of traditional doctrine and formal observance to an inner spiritual expe rience. As the revival proceeded, differences of opinioD RELIGION AND EDUCATION 277 developed. The violence of some preachers, including White- field, provoked a sharp reaction. The faculties of Harvard and Yale protested and were supported by many ministers. GraduaUy the movement spent its force. Edwards was dismissed by his congregation and threw himself into mis sionary work among the Indians, finding leisure, however, to do some of his most important writing. Aside from a certain lethargy which naturaUy followed Effects of this intense emotionalism, the Great Awakening brought Awakening. out two important tendencies in religious thought, both working against the old ecclesiastical system. One group of enthusiasts carried their dissatisfaction with the formal ism of the established churches so far that they broke away from them altogether. These "New Lights" offered a fruitful field for such popular churches as the Baptists, especiaUy in rural communities and frontier districts. The other movement had its greatest strength Beginnings in the more sophisticated society of the older towns. "arSnism It was inteUeetual rather than emotional and represented above aU a sharp reaction against some of the main tenets of orthodox Calvinism, — original sin, predestination, and, finaUy, even the doctrine of the Trinity. The fuU conse quences of this so-caUed "Arminian" teaching, which was much influenced by the writings of contemporary Eng lish rationalists, were not reaUzed until the Unitarian move- 'ment took shape after the Revolution. Long before that ,time, however, many churches in eastern Massachusetts had traveled far from the old Puritan orthodoxy. In education, New England made some progress durmg Education. its second century. Connecticut developed sufficiently to ^f^,., have a coUege of its own; Yale was founded in 1701, much to the satisfaction of the Mathers and their friends, who hoped it would offset the less orthodox tendencies developing at Harvard. There was one anxious moment when President Timothy Cutler announced his conversion to AngUcan 278 PROVINCIAL NEW ENGLAND Literature. Provincialism* principles and carried a few foUowers with him; but he was promptly dismissed and precautions taken to prevent "Ar- minian and Prelatical Corruptions" in the future. With the help of generous benefactors among the EngUsh dissent ers, Harvard was able to take some forward steps. Two professorships were estabUshed, one in divinity and one in natural phUosophy, the latter held during this period by John Winthrop, a true scientist and a member of the Royal Society. Elementary education was not yet free in the present sense of that term, but fair opportunities for school ing were offered under the Massachusetts and Connecticut laws. Rhode Island had several schools but as yet no pubhc educational system. The atmosphere of provincial New England was not fa vorable to art or Uterature. The writings of Cotton Mather, the leading author of his day, have Uttle interest now except for the special student of history or Uterature. Jonathan Edwards, who belongs to the next generation, was an infin itely greater man and some of his work has a distinctly poetic quaUty; but it is so involved in a subtle system of meta physical theology that it can appeal only to a select few. Probably the most significant Uterary development of the time was the estabUshment of weekly newspapers, beginning with the Boston Newsletter of 1704. These pubhcations offered opportunities for Uterary expression on other sub jects besides theology and gave the younger generation some experience in poUtical writing. The spiritual expansion of New England hardly kept pace with the growth of its population, the forward move ment of its frontier, or the broadening scope of its commerce. In politics, the Puritan colonies knew how to think freely and vigorously; but their inteUeetual Ufe was distinctly provincial. Rhode Island profited somewhat by its tradition of religious liberty and the two years' visit of Dean Berkeley, the great idealist phUosopher, helped to stimulate inteUeetual BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 279 interest, at least in a little group of choice spirits. On the eve of the Revolution Newport had perhaps the most Uberal society in New England. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES Winsor, America, V, 87-145. Palfrey, New England, IV, V General (comprehensive; too detaUed for most readers). Fiske, J., New refereuces- France and New England, chs. V, VI (fragmentary but suggestive). Selections from the sources in Hart, Contemporaries, II, ch. Ill, and nos. 47, 48, 78-80, 84, 90-93, 95. Channing, United States, II, 282-294. Hutchinson, History Massachu- of Massachusetts, II (partly, contemporary). KimbaU, E., Joseph setts politics Dudley. Winsor, J., Memorial History of Boston, II, ch. II. Duni- way, C. A., Freedom of the Press in Massachusetts, chs. V-VII. Richman, I. B., Rhode Island, pt. II. TrumbuU, B., Con- Other necticut, II. colonies- Matthews, L. K., Expansion of New England, chs. Ill, IV. Expansion. Turner, F. J., Frontier in American History, chs. II, III (especiaUy 69-79). Weeden, New England, chs. LX-XV. Peabody, R. E., Mer- Economic ¦chant Venturers of Old Salem. Interesting letters in Commerce of development. Rhode Island (Mass. Hist. Soc, Collections, LXIX). Morison, S. E., Maritime Hist, of Mass., chs. I, II. Andrews, Colonial Folkways: Lodge, H. C, English Colonies, Social life ch. XXII. Adams, C. F., Three Episodes, II. Winsor, Memorial %$J^' History of Boston, II, chs. XV, XVI. Channing, Narragansett Planters {Johns Hopkins Studies, IV). KimbaU, G. S., Providence in Colonial Times. Weeden, Early Rhode Island, chs. VII, VIII. Channing, United States, II, 437-445, 455-462. Earle, A. M., Religious Sabbath in Puritan New England. Greene, M. L., Religious Liberty in Connecticut, chs. V-XL Walker, G. L., Religious Life of New England, chs. II, III. Walker, W., Congregational Churches, chs. VI — VIII. Adams, B., Emancipation of Massachusetts, chs. VII-X, and Adams, C. F., Massachusetts, Historians and History, 65-107, are sharply critical. Jernegan, M. W., articles on education in School Review, Culture. 1915, 1918-1919- Channing, United States, II, 464-465, 460-472. 280 PROVINCIAL NEW ENGLAND Cook, E. C, Literary Influences in Colonial Newspapers, chs. I, II. Tyler, M. C, American Literature, II, chs. XI-XIV. Wright, T. G., Literary Culture in Colonial New England. Weeks, L. H., and Bacon, E. M., Historical Digest of the Provincial Press, I (issues of the Boston Newsletter). Typical New Diary of Samuel SewaU (Mass. Hist. Soc, Collections; selec- Englanders. tions m N_ H Cnamberlain) Samuel Sewall). Walker, W., In crease Mather (in Ten New England Leaders). WendeU, B., Cotton Mather. AUen, A. V. G., Jonathan Edwards. Diary of John Adams in Works, II. Letters of Governor Belcher (in Mass. Hist. Soc, Collections, Sixth Series, VI, VII). G. S. Kimball, Cor respondence of Colonial Governors of Rhode Island; Talcott Papers (Conn. Hist. Soc, Collections, IV, V). Travels. Knight, S. K., Travels (1704; new edition, 1921; available in Stedman and Hutchinson, Library of American Literature, n, 248-264). Burnaby, A., Travels (1759-60; in various editions and in Pinkerton, Voyages, XIII). CHAPTER XIII EXPANSION IN THE MIDDLE PROVINCES After the reunion of the two Jerseys in 1701, there The middle were four provinces between New England and Maryland, ^'i^. New York and New Jersey were royal governments whUe Pennsylvania and Delaware were governed by WiUiam Penn. The population of these colonies was stUl very SmaU. In 1689, there were perhaps 40,000 in aU, of whom about half were in New York. Leaving the polit ical boundaries out of account for a moment, these early settlements feU mainly within two circles, each with a ra dius of about fifty mUes. One circle, with the southern tip of Manhattan as its center, included most of the inhab itants of New York and East New Jersey. The other, sinularly drawn from the junction of the Delaware and SchuylkiU rivers, took in most of the settlers in Pennsyl vania, West New Jersey, and Delaware. Outside of these two circles, centering about New York city and PhUadel phia respectively, the chief outposts were Albany on the Hudson, the eastern part of Long Island, which had much in common with New England, and a few settlements on Delaware Bay. During the first half of the eighteenth century, this Rapid section grew faster than any other, untU in 1760 the total expanslon* was about 400,000, ten times the figure for 1689. Penn sylvania forged rapidly ahead of New York and now stood with Massachusetts and Virginia as one of the three largest continental colonies. The two central regions about the cities of New York and PhUadelphia stiU had a large proportion 281 282 EXPANSION IN THE MIDDLE PROVINCES Expansionof Penn sylvania. Land policies. of the population, but the settled area had expanded rap idly. In the north there was not much actual occupation above Albany, but a thin broken strip of settlements extended westward along the Mohawk. On the southern edge of this strip there were a few pioneers in the Schoharie vaUey and about the sources of the Susquehanna. South of the Cats- kills, prosperous farming communities were estabUshed some distance back from the Hudson and some settlements were made in the highlands of northern New Jersey. Even yet, however, there were considerable gaps between the settle ments adjoining New York and those about PhUadelphia. The expansion of the settled area was most important in Pennsylvania. From its original nucleus about the junc tion of the Delaware and the SchuylkiU, it moved north ward up both these rivers and westward to the eastern slopes of the Appalachians and their intersecting vaUeys. Perhaps the most notable development was in the vaUeys of the lower Susquehanna and its tributaries. By 1750, there were weU estabUshed towns in this country, of which Lancaster was the most important. Farther back were the pioneer farms of the Scotch-Irish and other recent immi grants. The rapidly growing population of this southern border was poUticaUy within the limits of Pennsylvania, but it soon formed scarcely less important social and eco nomic relations with the Marylanders of the upper Ches apeake region. Beside the old New York and Philadelphia "spheres of influence," a third was graduaUy developed, without much regard to provincial boundaries, about the new port of Baltimore. The land poUcies of the provincial governments had much to do with the direction of this advance, checking it in some directions and stimulating it in others. The land systems of the middle provinces were, of course, rad- icaUy different from those of New England. From the Hud son vaUey southward the landholder was everywhere a LAND ADMINISTRATION 283 tenant, either of the King or of some proprietor or group of proprietors, and the chief outward sign of this landlord- tenant relation was the quitrent. The amounts charged Quitrents. varied in the different provmces, and at different times in the same provmce; but though never large, they were difficult to collect and a continual cause of friction. The most serious disturbances of this kind occurred in eastern New Jersey between 1745 and 1755, when the riots amounted | almost to civU war. On the borders of Pennsylvania, large numbers of squatters questioned the right of the proprietors to interfere with their taking up wUd lands as they saw fit. If cases were taken into the courts, juries were likely to side with delinquent tenants. So the trouble resulting was out of all proportion to the coUections made. The quitrent problem existed in aU these provinces, Problems but some features of land administration varied from one adnunistra- province to another. New York suffered most from the tion> concentration of land in a few hands. This evU began in the Dutch period, continued under the Duke of York, and was made worse by the lavish grants of the early royal governors. Four famUies controUed about two hundred square mUes of the best land on Long Island; and in West chester County, adjoining Manhattan, more than half the land belonged to six manorial estates. These conditions were not inviting to the immigrant who hoped to become a smaU freeholder and they help to explain why New York grew so slowly. In New Jersey the proprietors kept their rights as .landlords after they gave up the government to the Crown, 'and were active in provincial politics. In East Jersey especiaUy, the situation was complicated by the conflict ing grants of earlier years and the New England traditions which the settlers brought with them from their old homes. In Pennsylvania, the Penn family were landlords as weU as rulers and were frequently accused of thinking more of their property rights than of the welfare of the province. 284 EXPANSION IN THE MIDDLE PROVINCES EspeciaUy did the colonists object when the proprietors claimed that their reserved lands and quitrents should be exempt from taxation. On the whole, however, Penn's land poUcy was much more Uberal than that of New York and especiaUy favorable to purchasers of moderate freehold estates. This fact and his tolerant reUgious poUcy explain in large part the turning of immigration from New York to Pennsylvania. Diversity of In sharp contrast to New England, the middle region elements. showed the same diversity of racial and reUgious elements which had characterized it from the beginning. Again, however, the developments in New York and Pennsylvania were quite different. In New York, the fusion of Dutch and English went on, with the Dutch language steadUy losing ground, though in the middle of the eighteenth century it stUl predominated in certain locaUties, especiaUy about Albany. Lawyers complained that in some counties it was hard to get men who knew enough English to serve on juries. The intermingling of racial elements was especiaUy marked in the wealthy landowning and mercantUe famUies. Dutch Schuylers and Van Rensselaers intermarried with English Morrises, Scotch Livingstons, and French De Lanceys, so that the leaders of New York politics and society were a decidedly mixed stock. Nevertheless, in the vital matters of language, law, and poUtical institutions, the English strain prevaUed. In Pennsylvania, large-scale immigration left the descendants of the seventeenth-century pioneers in a decided minority and increased materiaUy the proportion of non-Enghsh people. PhUadelphia was now the main gateway through which Europeans found their way to the opportunities of American life; and the two countries from which most of them came were Germany, with the German cantons of Switzerland, and Ireland. Perhaps no nation in modern times has been so se verely tried as were the German people during the cen- GERMAN EMIGRATION 285 tury which began with the outbreak of the Thirty Years' Germany in War. That war was in itself one of the most destructive teentiTana in history. An appalling proportion of the population was centuries*.11 swept away, — in battle, by the wanton cruelty of a brutal soldiery, by privation and disease. There was also wide spread demoralization in agriculture, industry, and com merce. PoliticaUy, the war almost completed the disruption of the old "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation." On its ruins, a few states were expanding and developing a separate national consciousness; but the greater part of Germany was divided into petty principalities, ex ploited by petty despots, wasted by dynastic conflicts, and exposed to foreign invasion. Recovery from the effects of war was slow, and in western Germany, especiaUy, the healing process was interrupted repeatedly during the next half century. A new generation had not come of age after the peace of WestphaUa, before Louis XTV began the wars of conquest which continued with comparatively short in tervals for nearly fifty years. In these wars the German states were often involved on opposite sides, considerable territory was taken from the old empire, and the western border was usuaUy within the war zone. No region suffered more seriously in this way than the territory in the upper Rhine valley, known as the Palatinate, which was repeatedly invaded by the French armies. For most of the German emigrants, the principal motive Motives for was doubtless economic, the desire for a country where emigration. they could work on their own land, free from the burden some dues imposed by feudal lords and petty princes, free also from constant wars and rumors of wars. The neigh boring cantons of German Switzerland were saved from the worst of these experiences. Yet even in these Uttle repub lics there were feudal dues, services required by the lords, and tithes for the support of the state churches. Another serious grievance of the Swiss was the seUing of their mUitary 286 EXPANSION IN THE MIDDLE PROVINCES Englishinterest in Germancolonists. The great migration. service to foreign princes. Both in Germany and in Switzerland, economic motives were reenforced for many people by reUgious troubles. The treaty of Westphalia marked some advance in toleration; but CathoUc and Prot estant princes could stiff restrict seriously the religious freedom of their subjects, whUe neither CathoUcs nor Prot estants could be counted on to respect the rights of the smaUer dissenting groups. The Calvinists suffered from certain CathoUc governments in Germany; but in some of the Swiss cantons which the Protestants controUed, dis senting sects like the Mennonites were harshly treated, partly because they objected to mUitary service. Political, economic, and reUgious discontent made a fertile soil for colonial promoters to work in; but Germany was too disorganized to have colonies of its own and so the dis tressed and discontented had to look elsewhere. It happened at this particular time, that English economists and states men felt the importance of increasing population. Prot estant refugees from France, the Netherlands, and Germany had done much for EngUsh industry, and the hard-working peasantry of the Continent would make exceUent material for the colonies. One result of this feeling was an act of Parliament passed in 1709 for the naturalization of foreign Protestants. Ever since Penn began to plan his colony the advantages of America as a home for German colonists had been persistently advertised, and in the early years of the eighteenth century many thousand peas ants had come to think of America as a promised land of freedom, peace, and prosperity. It was not, however, until 1709, that emigration from Germany and Switzerland began on a large scale. In that year there was pubUshed a new edition of a book by Joshua Kocherthal, a German Protestant pastor, describing in glow ing terms the advantages of Carolina and suggesting the possibflity of assistance from the EngUsh government. It THE "PALATINES" 287 happened also that the winter of 1 708-1 709 was unusu ally severe and caused widespread distress. The result of aU these things and of the activities of English agents was the exodus of many thousand Germans from the Palatinate and other parts of the Rhineland to England. Whatever the British government may have done to stim ulate this movement, it was certainly perplexed by the enormous number of refugees whom it was expected to take care of. For several months they were encamped near London and generous private contributions were made for their support; the expenses of the government itself were also large. Obviously such conditions could not continue indefi- Palatinate nitely. Several hundred refugees who were CathoUcs and New^York? therefore could not take the oath required of them by the new naturalization act, were sent back to Germany. Of the rest, many remained in England, some settled in Ire land, a few hundred joined a group of Swiss emigrants to North Carolina; and especially notable are the three thou sand refugees sent to New York in 17 10. Acting on the advice of Robert Hunter, the newly appointed governor of New York, it was decided to send these unfortunate people to that province and set them to making naval stores in the forests of the Hudson valley. Hunter doubt less meant well but the affair was bungled and finally the project had to be given up. Meantime, the Germans un dertook to buy land from the Indians without authority from the government and got into more difficulties in con sequence. A few finaUy got satisfactory titles and formed the nucleus of a somewhat important German element in the Mohawk vaUey; but the chief effect of this episode was to convince the immigrants and their friends that New York was not the right place for them. A few years later a number of them made their way from the Mohawk vaUey to the upper Susquehanna and down that river into Berks 288 EXPANSION IN THE MIDDLE PROVINCES German and Swiss migration to Penn sylvania. Influenceof the German element. County, Pennsylvania. Even this colony had its problems; but on the whole it proved much more congenial to the foreign colonists. So the mam stream of German immi gration for the next fifty years was diverted to Penn sylvania. The same year, 1710, which brought Hunter and the "Palatines" to New York, was marked by the beginning of an important settlement of Swiss Mennonites in the region about Lancaster, Pennsylvania, which soon became one of the chief centers of German and Swiss population. The annual average of German immigrants from 1727 to 1754 inclusive seems to have been about 2000, the high point being reached in the last six years of this period. Some of them settled in New Jersey, and others, especiaUy in the middle years of the century, moved southward into Mary land and Virginia; but the largest number remained in Pennsylvania, where on the eve of the Revolution they formed about one third of the total population. With remarkable skiU, the Germans picked the best farming lands in the limestone vaUeys, and they were not afraid to break away from the river courses to clear the forests of the back country. Many immigrants, however, were so poor that they had to get their transportation and support by seUing their services for a term of years. These "redemp- tioners" suffered many hardships but many of them earned before long an honorable status as independent farmers. This "mass-immigration" of the Germans caused some anxiety. Provincial officials complained that "being ig norant of our language and laws" they formed "a distinct people from his Majesty's subjects." Even so Uberal a man as Benjamin Franklin feared that the Germans might be able to establish their language to the exclusion of the EngUsh. An effort was made to avert the danger by restricting immigration, but the proprietary governors usuaUy opposed such legislation and it generaUy faUed. EMIGRATION FROM IRELAND 289 Meantime the Germans were estabUshing their own churches schools, printing presses, and newspapers, becoming more and more a factor to be reckoned with; though their for eign language kept them for many years comparatively inactive in poUtics. Irish emigration also was the result of unfortunate Emigration conditions at home. Most of these early Irish emi- xh™ Scotch?' grants, however, came not from the Catholic population Irish- of the south and west, but from those northern counties of Ulster whose bitter opposition to "Home Rule" has done so much to complicate the Irish problem in the political struggles of recent years. In 17 18, when this emigration first became important, the Scottish colony in Ireland was about a century old. At the beginning of the seventeenth century, the English attitude toward Ireland was in some respects Uke that taken toward America. A large part of the native population, mainly Catholics, was to be dispossessed and the land turned over to the King's Protestant subjects. Great tracts were granted to English promoters, much as Virginia and New England were then being given away to corporations of a similar kind. Of the actual colonists in Ulster, however, the great majority were Scottish rather than English. These "Scotch-Irish" had some trying experiences. Conditions There was constant friction both with the native Irish and m ulster- with the English government. After the Revolution of 1688 they supported the cause of WiUiam of Orange (WU- liam IH) and the Protestant succession, as against the Catholic Irish, who generaUy favored James II. The Orange men were victorious but the struggle left behind a bitterness of feeling between them and their Catholic neighbors which is still painfuUy evident. Nevertheless, the colony was now securely rooted. They were hard-working, thrifty farmers, and good business men; they also developed prom ising woolen and linen manufactures. 290 EXPANSION IN THE MIDDLE PROVINCES Economic grievances. Religious grievances. Unfortunately the British government of that period pursued a narrow poUcy which checked the prosperity of Ireland in general and of Ulster in particular. In order to check Irish competition in EngUsh, colonial, and foreign markets, restrictions were imposed on Irish exports, in cluding Uve stock and woolen manufactures. The Woolens Act of 1699 apphed to Ireland as weU as to the colonies and practicaUy destroyed that promising industry. In order to divert Irish interest from woolen manufactures, the gov ernment promised to encourage the production of linen, which became an important Ulster industry; but even this trade suffered at times from discouraging regulations. Agra rian troubles also caused unrest. There were unfortunate restrictions on tUlage, and landlords were charged with raising rents unfairly. The AngUcan Archbishop of Dublin declared in 1719 that these economic grievances were the chief reasons for the Irish emigration. "Your ParUament," he wrote a Uttle earUer to the Archbishop of Canterbury, "is destroying the Uttle trade that is left us. These and other discouragements are driving away the few Protes tants that are amongst us." Religious grievances were probably not the chief cause of Scotch-Irish emigration, but they also had something to do with it. From their old homes, these people had brought with them the strenuous Protestant spirit of Scotch Presby terianism, and they soon had a strong organization with an able and aggressive clergy, many of whom had been trained in the Scotch universities. The Presbyterians were, however, obhged to pay tithes for the support of the Church of Ireland, an AngUcan organization which represented only a smaU minority of the Irish people. Some conces sions were made to Protestant dissenters after the Revo lution of 1688, but they were stiU at a serious disadvantage. Discouraged and exasperated by these experiences, many of the Ulster people began to look for new homes across SCOTCH -IRISH SETTLEMENTS 291 the sea. At first some were attracted to New England, Scotch-Irish where they formed pioneer settlements in central Massa- England and chusetts, Maine, and New Hampshire. They did not New York- always mix weU, however, with the New England variety of Puritanism, and after 1720 most of the Scotch-Irish went to other colonies. In New York they helped to de velop the prosperous farming counties of Ulster and Orange, and on the eve of the Revolution there were also a few frontier settlements about the upper Susquehanna, just above the Pennsylvania line. Like the Germans, the Scotch-Irish found Pennsyl- Scotch-Irish vania more attractive. Before 1720 comparatively few had !JiVania~ gone to that province, but after that, their numbers rap idly increased untU they rivaled the Germans. In 1724, James Logan, secretary of the province, complained of the "bold and indigent strangers" from Ireland who had squatted on lands then in dispute between Pennsylvania and Maryland. When, in 1729, over five thousand of these people came in, Logan wrote in alarm: "It looks as if Ire land is to send aU its inhabitants hither." By the middle of the century the Irish pioneers had pushed weU up the Delaware River, but their principal settlements during this period were in the Susquehanna vaUey, foUowing its course northwesterly to the neighborhood of Harrisburg and then turning southwest across the river into the Cumberland vaUey. A Uttle later they moved up the Juniata, one of the principal tributaries of the Susquehanna. Here on the edge of the wUderness the Scotch-Irish with the Germans were forming buffer communities, bearing the brunt of Indian attacks and taking views of their savage neighbors quite different from those held in the older settlements. Unlike the Germans, the Scotch-Irish had no serious Relations language barrier to isolate them from their neighbors. With government. some dialectic peculiarities, they were EngUsh speaking; nevertheless they proved on the whole more difficult for 292 EXPANSION EST THE MIDDLE PROVINCES Labor in the middle colonies. Farming. The "bread colonies." the provincial authorities to deal with than the Germans. When charged with occupying land without legal titles, they declared it was "against the laws of God and Nature, that so much land should be idle whffe so many Christians wanted it to labour on." With such people a land system by which settlers paid quitrents to absentee landlords was sure to make trouble. On the whole, the immigrants of this period in the four middle provinces were weU adapted to the work required. A few had capital and capacity for organization but the great majority were indentured servants, free laborers, or workers on their own farms. The number of negro slaves was comparatively smaU, New York having the largest proportion. In the city of New York and on some of the large estates in that vicinity, they were numerous enough to cause some anxiety. The "negro plots" of 1712 and 1741 were of sffght importance in themselves but they produced a state of hysterical excitement even more tragic than the witchcraft panic in Massachusetts. In 1741, fourteen negroes were burned at the stake in New York and eight een more were hanged; there were simUar disturbances in New Jersey. In Pennsylvania the Quakers, in spite of some antislavery feeling among them, did not take a decided stand during this period and many of them owned slaves. Nevertheless, the evident need of inteUigent white labor on the wheat farms combined with ethical motives to keep slavery down. There was a striking difference in this respect between Pennsylvania and its nearest neighbor to the southward. The chief business of this whole middle section was farming. Here were the "bread colonies" of England's American empire, exporting wheat and flour in large quan tities. New York had only begun to use her agricultural resources; but by the middle of the century, she was ship ping flour at the rate of 80,000 barrels a year, the product AGRICULTURE AND TRADE 293 of her own farms and those of northern New Jersey. The chief granary of the continent was Pennsylvania, where the Germans took the lead in inteUigent farm management. Governor PownaU, who visited the German and Swiss settlements about Lancaster in 1754, found "some of the finest farms one can conceive, and in the highest state of culture. " Primitive log huts graduaUy gave way to more pretentious houses of brick and stone. Travelers were especiaUy impressed by the immense stone barns of the more prosperous German farmers. Hardly less picturesque were the great wagons in which wheat, flour, and vegetables were carried to the Philadelphia market. Before long, however, some of these settlements began to find then- best outlet across the Maryland line through Chesapeake Bay. For New York the fur trade was stiU a prime interest. The fur To hold it against French competition, the post of Oswego tra e" was founded on Lake Ontario and strenuous efforts were made with some success to establish direct connections with the western Indians. Under the influence of Gov ernor Burnet and his advisers, the assembly tried to check the export of English goods to Canada, in the hope that the Indians, who preferred EngUsh goods, might be drawn away from the French. This legislation faUed, however, because too many New Yorkers were interested in the trade with Canada. As the German and Scotch-Irish pioneers moved on to the frontiers of Pennsylvania, this colony also acquired an increasing interest in the western fur trade. The sturdy backwoodsmen, led by such famous guides as the German Conrad Weiser and the Irish George Croghan, dealt directly with the Indians, whUe PhUadelphia merchants supplied capital and made large profits in the trade. ShipbuUding and ocean commerce were both growing shipbuilding interests. New York and PhUadelphia, like Boston, found commerce. their most valuable market in the West Indies and were 294 EXPANSION IN THE MIDDLE PROVINCES New York and Phila delphiasociety. Manufactures. similarly annoyed by the Molasses Act. They also sent provisions and lumber to Spain, Portugal, and the Portu guese islands. Philadelphia developed much faster than either New York or Boston and before the Revolution stood first among the cities of the English seaboard. In the Jer seys some trade, legal and Ulegal, went on at Perth Amboy in the north and Burlington on the Delaware River; but as Governor Franklin said, just before the Revolution, New York and PhUadelphia were "the commercial capitals of East and West New Jersey." Both in New York and in PhUadelphia, society was dominated by rich merchant fam ilies, — Dutch, French, Scotch, and EngUsh in the former; in the latter, the old Quaker famUies stUl held the lead. Both towns impressed foreign travelers as comfortable and prosperous. Before the Revolution, New Yorkers were bunding "spacious, genteel houses" of stone and brick, some of them four or five stories high. PhUadelphia was more uniformly, not to say monotonously, buUt of brick. The EngUsh Burnaby and the Swedish Kalm both spoke of it with enthusiasm. The latter wrote of "its fine appear ance, good regulations, agreeable situation, natural advan tages, trade, riches, and power." In the history of colonial manufactures, Pennsylvania and New Jersey have an honorable place, partly because the foreign immigration, especiaUy from Germany, brought many skilled workmen. In a wheat-growing region, milling1 was important and before the Revolution the best flour miUs of this region were probably equal to any in Europe. Though the coal resources of Pennsylvania were practicaUy unused for industrial purposes, the Delaware colonies were active in manufactures of iron, textUes, paper, and glass. PhUadelphia had a remarkable variety of skUled mechanics. Two other Pennsylvania towns also were noted for their manufactures. At Germantown, according to the Swedish traveler Kalm, "most of the inhabitants are manufacturers, INTERCOLONIAL POLITICS 295 and make almost everything in such quantity and per fection, that, in a short time, this province wiU lack very little from England, its mother country." Lancaster, the largest inland town in the English colonies, was another considerable center for weavers and metal workers. The printing business was weU developed both by the English and by the Germans. WiUiam Bradford and Benjamin Franklin were perhaps the most successful among the former; it was Franklin also who printed the first Ger man book in America. Conspicuous among the Germans was Christopher Sauer, who established his press in 1738. Five years later he pubUshed his quarto edition of the Ger man Bible. In the history of the middle provinces, economic and Politics. social evolution seems more important than politics. Most of the important poUtical issues of the period are like those already noted in other royal and proprietary colonies. So far as local conditions produced issues of a more distinc tive kind, they were usuaUy characteristic of particular provinces rather than of the section as a whole. Expansion did, however, bring some problems of intercolonial poli tics. Boundary questions, for instance, became more urgent Boundary as settlers moved into the disputed regions. On the New versies. England border, New York's dispute with Connecticut was most easUy disposed of; a similar one with Massachusetts dragged on through the whole of this period and the conflict with New Hampshire was just becoming serious on the eve of the Revolution. About the middle of the cen tury, Connecticut tried to colonize the Wyoming country (part of the Susquehanna vaUey) in Pennsylvania on the strength of her sea-to-sea charter. There were also disputes between New York and New Jersey, decided just before the Revolution, and between New York and Pennsylvania, though in the latter case the slow progress of settlement prevented a reaUy serious conflict. The most famous and 296 EXPANSION IN THE MIDDLE PROVINCES Intercolonialconnections. Strategic im portance of New York. acrimonious of aU the intercolonial boundary disputes was ended by the fixing of "Mason and Dixon's line," in 1769, between Pennsylvania and Maryland. Some political connections cut across provincial bounda ries. From 1702 to 1738, New Jersey had to get on with a governor who was also responsible for New York and spent most of his time there. The New Jersey people natu raUy objected and in 1738 got a separate governor of their own. Several prominent politicians owned land or had busi ness interests in more than one province. Some of the New Jersey councUors Uved in New York or PhUadelphia and one of them was for a time chief justice of New York. Quaker traditions affected poUtics on both sides of the Delaware and one New Jersey governor complained that his people were too much influenced by the Pennsylvanians. In the famous Zenger Ubel case, one of the best-known poU- ticians and lawyers of Pennsylvania was caUed in by the New Yorkers to defend the liberty of the press. New York continued to have a political importance out of proportion to its population. Leaving out of account the detached trading stations of the Hudson's Bay Company, it was the chief base for the northern fur trade, and the north western outpost of the British dominions. Within its sphere of influence was the most powerful of the Indian confedera cies, on whose attitude depended to a large extent the out come of the great Anglo-French struggle for supremacy in North America. As Governor BeUomont said in 1699, New York "ought to be looked upon as the capital Province or the Cittadel to aU the others; for secure but this and you secure aU the EngUsh Colonies, not only against the French but also against any insurrections or rebellions against the Crown of England, if any such should happen, which God forbid." From this imperial point of view, the actual devel opment of New York poUtics was disappointing. Though the New Yorkers were among the last to receive a repre- NEW YORK POLITICS 297 sentative assembly, they were soon conspicuous for their encroachments on the King's prerogative and that of his governor. This fight for autonomy was carried on, during most of New York this period, not by or for the great body of the colonists, poUtics- but in the interest of a privUeged class. Excepting a few merchants and artisans in New York and Albany, who could vote as freemen of the corporation, the suffrage was limited to freeholders of land worth at least forty pounds. This excluded a majority of the adult male population. More over, since any person having a life interest in his property was reckoned a freeholder for this purpose, many of the voters were tenants of the great landowners and more or less subject to their influence. PoUtics was, therefore, largely con- troUed by a few leading famUies. This aristocracy, however, had its factions, each striving to control the government for its own purposes. Succeeding governors usuaUy played for the support of one or more of these factions ; the others tended to join the opposition. In aU this there was not much real democratic feeling; but as time went on the opposition leaders tried to win popular support by laying more stress upon genuine constitutional principles and the rights of the common man. Here, as elsewhere, constitutional conflicts turned largely Constitu- on the control of the purse. The official theory was that, control while taxes had to be levied by the assembly, the govern- p^J^ ment should be made stable by permanent grants for its support; that appropriations should be general, leaving specific expenditures to be determined by the governor and councU; and that the assembly should have no further con trol except the right of examining and criticizing the accounts. Before long, this view was chaUenged by the assembly, partly because of the misconduct of the early governors, especiaUy the notorious misappropriation of public funds by Lord Cornbury, a cousin of Queen Anne and the degener- 298 EXPANSION IN THE MIDDLE PROVINCES New York and the home gov ernment. The as sembly and public opinion. ate grandson of the great Earl of Clarendon. Bit by bit, a poUcy was adopted which almost revolutionized the provincial government, shifting the center of gravity de cidedly from the governor to the assembly. In spite of vigorous protests by successive governors and by the Board of Trade, appropriations, including the governor's salary, were made only for Umited terms, first for five years, but finaUy only for one. The representatives also decided that the money raised by taxes should be kept by the pro vincial treasurer, an officer of their own choosing who could be depended upon to carry out their .poUcies. When the councU, acting as an upper house, objected to these poU cies, the house of representatives took a leaf out of the practice of the EngUsh House of Commons and denied the right of the council to afhend money biUs at all. In 1 75 1 the Board of Trade made an elaborate report on New York and caUed for drastic action; but the hard fact was that the assembly, having the right either to give or refuse money, could fix its own conditions and the governor could not prevent it. The only remedy which might have been effective was the raising of revenue by act of Parlia ment, and as early as 1711 this was actuaUy proposed by Robert Hunter, perhaps the ablest of the New York gov ernors. Similar suggestions were made later, but the home government shrank from such extreme action. Thus, in spite of its early "strong government" traditions, the merchants and landowners of New York were surprisingly successful in their fight for self-government. It has already been suggested that even the assembly did not adequately represent the people. A skillful governor could indeed so distribute his favors as to buUd up a party for himself among the representatives. To lessen this danger and keep the assembly in closer touch with pubhc opinion, the assembly passed a law requiring triennial elections; but it was disaUowed by the English Privy CouncU, which THE ZENGER CASE 299 caUed it "a very high infringement upon the prerogative of the Crown." Under these circumstances, free discussion in the public press was essential if there was to be any real popular control of the government. Fortunately for New York, and for other colonies as weU, this principle of a free press won a notable victory in the famous Zenger case of I73S- Shortly before this time, the chief justice of New York The Zenger 1 had been removed because Governor Cosby objected to his case" stand in a case in which the latter was personaUy interested. Sharp criticism of the governor naturaUy foUowed and some of it was printed in the New York Weekly Journal, published by a German immigrant named John Peter Zenger. The gov ernor then caused the prosecution of Zenger for criminal libel. The new chief justice who presided at the trial showed a strong bias against the defendant, but Zenger's supporters were fortunate in securing the services of Andrew Hamil ton, a leading lawyer and politician of Pennsylvania. By a skmful appeal to the jurymen he persuaded them to disregard the ruling of the court, which was that they had nothing to do but decide whether Zenger had, or had not, pubUshed the articles in question. This theory would have allowed the judges alone to decide whether the articles were really Ubelous; but HamUton argued that the jury had a right to decide whether a pubhcation was actually false, malicious, and so Ubelous. Moved by HamUton's elo quent plea for free public discussion, the jury acquitted Zenger and estabUshed a new landmark in the history of a free press. Pennsylvania, too, had its perennial conflicts between Pennsylva- governor and assembly, the former defending his own pre- DemandsCS rogative and the rights of his superiors in England, and the "{^yy latter representing the desire of the ruling class among the colonists to manage their business with the least possible interference. Here also the assembly got the better in these interests. 300 EXPANSION IN THE MIDDLE PROVINCES encounters. The Pennsylvanians had a certain advantage in Penn's Uberal charter of 1701, which gave them annuaUy elected assembUes. Before long, they went a step further and denied the governor's right to dissolve or prorogue the house. "We sit," said Speaker Andrew HamUton in 1739, "upon our own adjournments, when we please, and as long as we think necessary." In using their grip on the purse strings to extort poUtical concessions, there was Uttle to choose be tween the "topping" Quakers and their northern neighbors. Governors were kept in hand by making their salaries a matter of annual or semiannual votes, and treasurers, chosen by the assembly and subject to its orders, kept the province funds. The governor's appointing power was also seriously curtaUed in other ways. Conflicting In certain other respects, Pennsylvania was quite differ ent from New York. In the Quaker colony, politics was a triangular game, with King, proprietor, and colonists— aU standing for special interests of their own. The governor had to think not only of the proprietor, who appointed him, and the assembly, without whose cooperation the public business would stop, but also of the British government, which expected him to enforce the acts of trade and raise funds for mUitary purposes. The Penn famUy were responsible for the civU government and for the welfare of the people who lived under it; but they were also the principal land owners, claiming quitrents from their tenants and holding on their own account great areas of improved and unimproved land. This compUcated relationship made trouble even in the lifetime of WUUam Penn, when proprietor and people had a common interest in the realization of Quaker ideals. There was stiff more trouble under his sons and grandsons, who gave up the Quaker faith and whose interests in the province were scarcely different from those of any other absentee landlord. For many years, the assembly refrained from taxing the PENNSYLVANIA POLITICS 3°I proprietary estates or their quitrents; but during the last Taxing French wars, tax bUls were held up because the assembly proletary insisted on what the proprietors considered unfair charges estates. upon their estates. With the home government urging appropriations for defense and the assembly determined not to give them without the obnoxious taxes, the governor was in a hard place. FinaUy the assembly practicaUy bribed him into a violation of his instructions. The irritation caused by these controversies was so great that in 1764 a strong party, with Benjamin Franklin as one of its principal leaders, tried to have the proprietary government overthrown and a royal government established, though this project was finaUy given up. As a Quaker colony, Pennsylvania found it hard to adjust Pennsylva- its institutions and ideals to the demands of the home gov- EngUsh e ernment. This was especiaUy serious because, under the e°vemment royal charter, the province was more closely controlled by the home government than were the other proprietary colo nies. Its laws had to be sent to England for approval and the whole experiment was jealously watched by unfriendly critics on both sides of the Atlantic. Many of the early laws were disaUowed by the home government on the ground that they were contrary to the laws of England. Penn was so much harassed by these complaints, as weU as by the appar ently ungrateful attitude of his own people, that he came near giving up his government altogether. Among the controversies which arose between Pennsyl- The ques- vania and the British government, two were closely connected judicial with the peculiar teaching of the Society of Friends. One oaths- was the question of oaths, and the other that of mUitary service. On the first question, the Quakers stood for a law aUowing in aU cases the substitution of a solemn affirmation in place of an oath. To secure this privUege for themselves in their own colony seemed reasonable enough; even the British ParUament aUowed Quakers in certain cases to affirm 302 EXPANSION IN THE MIDDLE PROVINCES instead of swearing. In England, however, oaths were re quired of aU jurymen, witnesses in criminal cases, and officials generaUy. The early Pennsylvania practice naturally went farther and aUowed affirmations in aU cases. It also faUed to provide adequately for administering oaths to persons who preferred to use that form. So one provincial law after another was passed only to be disaUowed by the home government. The long deadlock was ended by two acts of the Pennsylvania assembly, one in 1718, and one in 1724, both approved by the King; taken together they extended to Pennsylvania a considerable part of the EngUsh penal code, but reUeved the Quakers from the obUgation of taking oaths. Since, however, judges were obhged to administer the oath to any person who desired it, a strict Quaker could hardly hold that office. The ques- The question of military service caused even more trouble. raffitary Though some Quakers were less strict than others, most of service. them agreed that a Friend should not bear arms himself and that a Quaker legislator should not vote for strictly miU- tary appropriations. Since the assembly was generaUy controUed by the Quakers, such appropriations were fre quently refused. Some of the Quakers, however, real ized the difficulty of the situation and grants were some times made in such terms that they could be used, directly or indirectly, for miUtary purposes, as for instance for the reUef of friendly Indians or "for the Queen's use." During the period of peace between 17 13 and 1739, this issue feU The problem into the background; but when the Anglo-Spanish war 1739-1763! broke out, in 1739, foUowed shortly afterwards by war with France, Pennsylvania was naturaUy asked to do her part in the common defense. Meantime, the relations of the Penn sylvanians with their Indian neighbors had changed de cidedly for the worse. Unfair practices of unscrupulous officials weakened the old friendly feeling and few of the new frontiersmen had any sympathy with Quaker ideas; POLITICS AND RELIGION 3°3 the Scotch-Irish were especiaUy pugnacious. So the Quakers were in a trying position. They were stiU unwilling to vote for mUitia laws and military appropriations, but they were under severe pressure both from the British government and from their own frontier settlers. They finaUy found a way out of this dUemma by giving up enough seats in the assembly to reUeve themselves temporarUy of the responsi bility for carrying on the government. UntU the crisis of the French War, the old Quaker fami- Quaker Ues were fairly successful in their control of provincial poli- p^cs " tics. This was true long after they had lost their numerical majority, because they got on fairly weU with the earUer German immigrants, who, being unfamUiar with the Eng Ush language and English poUtical methods, were wUUng to leave the government in the hands of the old ruling class. With the Scotch-Irish and many of the German frontiersmen the case was quite different. As against the conservatism of the seaboard there graduaUy developed an aggressive frontier democracy, which demanded more energetic meas ures for defense. It also denounced the poUtical system which kept down the representation of the western counties and enabled a minority in the older settlements to control the poUcies of the province. Perhaps the most striking characteristic of society in Religion in the middle provinces was the way in which men of different ccf0mes; e religious traditions were learning to Uve together. Except toleratlon- in New York, no serious efforts were made to estabhsh any one church, and even there the attempt faUed almost com pletely. Though the New York law of 1693 providing for the support of a Protestant clergy was for a time used by AngUcan governors to give their church a privUeged posi tion, this poUcy had to be given up because the great ma jority of the inhabitants belonged to other churches. Popu lar prejudice against the CathoUcs led to some harsh legislation against them in New York. The instructions 304 EXPANSION IN THE MIDDLE PROVINCES Anglican Church. \ Developmentsamong the Quakers. to the royal governors requiring them to respect liberty of conscience made an exception of "papists," who were excluded from office even in Pennsylvania. In the latter colony, however, CathoUc worship was not interfered with and mass was pubUcly celebrated in PhUadelphia. In New York the Jews had a regular place for pubhc worship. WiUiam Smith, the contemporary historian of New York, though speaking of his own province, probably expressed the prevaUing opinion in this whole section when he said that the "body of the people" were "for an equal, universal toleration of Protestants, and averse to any kind of ecclesiastical establishment." Of the principal religious groups in the middle colonies, the AngUcans were more conspicuous for their prestige and political influence than for their numbers. Through the work of the Society for Propagating the Gospel and the active support of some royal officials, this church made substantial progress and there were fairly strong parishes in PhUadel phia, Burlington, and New York. Because of the close re lation between the Anglican clergy and the office-holding group, the other denominations were always afraid that the Church of England might gain some unfair advantage. The Quakers held their ground fairly weU in Pennsyl vania and West New Jersey, though at the beginning of this period they suffered from the propaganda of a former Friend, George Keith, who first formed a group of his own caUed the "Keithian" Quakers and then led some of his foUowers into the Anglican Church. Within the Society, there were differences of opinion between those who emphasized the mystical aspects of Quaker teaching and those who were more rationalistic and practical. Many of the younger generation lacked the enthusiasm of the founders; but the Society was fairly consistent in upholding Quaker principles in the matter of oaths and mUitary service. The Quakers also came to take a more definite antislavery position, though there LUTHERANS AND CALVINISTS 305 were a number of slaveowners among them. In r7s8 the Yearly Meeting resolved that Friends should set their slaves "at Uberty, making a Christian provision for them"; and a committee was appointed to confer with slave-owning members. The Germans and Swiss brought a great variety of German reUgious denominations. The Lutherans and the Calvinists churches!3 were the most numerous; but the smaUer sects, being more picturesque, have attracted more attention. Some of them were strongly mystical and formed communities in which they withdrew from the distractions of the world to lead a strictly reUgious life. Conspicuous among the minor groups were the peace-loving Mennonites and Moravians; the latter were especiaUy devoted missionaries to the Indians. There The were Lutherans on the Delaware even before Penn's time ut erans" and their numbers grew rapidly with the German migration of the eighteenth century. At first they had no efficient organization, but in 1741 they found an able leader in the person of Heinrich Muhlenberg. He came to Pennsylvania from HaUe, in Saxony, and he represented the pietistic element in the Lutheran Church, which was trying to get below formaUties to a deeper spiritual life. In 1748 was organized at PhUadelphia the first American synod of the Lutheran Church. Similar work was done for the German Reformed churches by another able man, the Rev. Michael Schlatter. Taking the middle colonies as a whole, the most important The Cal- reUgious element was probably the group of denominations churches. which accepted the teaching of John Calvin. This group f^anim included the Dutch Reformed Church of New Netherland and New York, which stiU kept up some connection with the established church of HoUand; the Puritan emigrants from New England, chiefly in New York and New Jersey; the Scotch-Irish Presbyterians; and the German Reformed churches. Before long many of the EngUsh-speaking Cal- education. 306 EXPANSION IN THE MIDDLE PROVINCES vinists came together in a new Presbyterian organization. The first American presbytery was organized at Philadel phia in 1706, by the Scotch-Irish preacher, Francis Makemie, and the church grew rapidly after the Scotch-Irish migration set in. The Great Awakening was responsible for some dis sensions among the Presbyterians; but they furnished some of its principal leaders and were on the whole stimulated by it. Presbyterianism was also reenforced by some Dutch Calvinists who had become accustomed to the English language. By 1758, the various presbyteries were united in the synod of New York and Philadelphia, and on the eve of the Revolution this church was a powerful factor in poUtics as weU as in reUgion. Unlike the AngUcans and the peace-loving Quakers, the Presbyterians incUned toward a somewhat aggressive democracy. Problems of In an age when reUgion and education were closely asso ciated, the heterogeneous population of the middle provinces naturaUy found it difficult to estabUsh efficient public-school systems. In New York a smaU beginning was made by the Dutch; but after the EngUsh conquest, the two races faUed to get together on any effective program of pubUc edu cation, and a contemporary writer says that the New York schools were "in the lowest order." One of the early Penn sylvania laws required parents to see that their chUdren learned to read and write, and were taught "some useful trade or skfll." For the most part, the responsibUity for education was assumed by famUies, reUgious societies, and other private organization's. The AngUcan missionary work included the maintenance of church schools, and the Quakers, whUe neglecting higher education, founded a number of ele mentary and secondary schools. The various German sects were also active and they had some highly educated men among their clergy. An AngUcan churchman wrote in 1763 that they seemed to be "abundantly weU provided in teachers of one kind or another." The Presbyterian minis- INTELLECTUAL INTERESTS 307 ters also emphasized general education as well as theological training. Higher education naturaUy came much later here than Colleges. in New England, but about the middle of the century three Pnnceton- coUeges were founded. The CoUege of New Jersey, now Princeton University, was chartered in 1746 and graduated its first class in 1748. Its chief promoters were Presbyterian clergy of Irish, Scotch, or New England stock, and like the other Puritan coUeges, it laid special stress on the training of ministers. Princeton became more and more the chief inteUeetual center of the Scotch-Irish population in the middle region and in the South. Some prominent New Yorkers were trained at Yale; but in 1754, King's CoUege was char- King's tered in the city of New York. The dominant influence ° ege' in this coUege was Anglican, with some representation of other elements in the governing board. Its first presi dent was that energetic AngUcan churchman and writer, Samuel Johnson. A Uttle earUer, Benjamin Franklin and university a few other Uberal-minded citizens founded the "Academy" °L^^^ in Philadelphia, which later developed into the University of Pennsylvania. Unlike its predecessors, it was not con- troUed by a reUgious denomination and gave more attention to modern subjects Uke EngUsh and the sciences. The middle region had its fair share of active-minded The intel- men who contributed to the education of their contempora- - ries. The royal governors, for instance, were not aU rakes or adventurers. One of them, Robert Hunter, was a friend of Addison and Swift, and his letters show his interest in natural science. His successor, Burnet, was a Cambridge University man, with some reputation as a coUector and reader of books. A protege" of both these governors was CadwaUader Colden, one of the most interesting personali- CadwaUader ties of provincial New York. A graduate in medicine of the University of Edinburgh, he came to America, spent a few years in business and medical practice at PhUadelphia, and 308 EXPANSION IN THE MIDDLE PROVINCES JamesLogan. John Bartram. BenjaminFranklin. then attracted the attention of Governor Hunter, who made him surveyor-general of New York. Becoming interested in Indian relations, Colden wrote a weU-known History of the Five Indian Nations. He was also the author of numer ous phUosophical and scientific papers, some of which were important enough to give him a recognized place in the history of American thought. I The Ust of Colden's Pennsylvania correspondents shows how the thinking men of these provinces were keeping in touch with one another. Three of them deserve special notice. James Logan was a Uberal-minded Scotch-Irish Quaker who came to Pennsylvania as WiUiam Penn's secretary. Though a successful business man, poUtician, and judge, he kept up his scientific interests, contributing to the Transactions of the British Royal Society articles on mathematics, physics, and botany. In his old age Franklin printed for him a trans lation of Cicero's De Senectute. Another interesting figure was John Bartram, the botanist, whom a wen-known contemporary scientist in England characterized as a "wonderful natural genius." The outstanding figure in this Pennsylvania group was of course Benjamin Franklin. A Yankee by birth, his naturaUy free and tolerant spirit found in PhUadelphia con genial and stimulating associations. Beginning as a printer's apprentice, he edited the principal newspaper of Pennsyl vania and then turned naturaUy to poUtics. A leader first in his own province, his influence reached out into intercolo nial and even imperial affairs. Better than any other Ameri can he was fitted to mediate between his countrymen and the British government. He represented the latter as the head of the postal service in America and he became later the chief interpreter in England of the American point of view. Through his newspaper and his Poor Richard's Al manac, he partly expressed and partly molded the popular "common-sense" phUosophy of his feUow citizens. He BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 309 was fuU of plans for improving the life of his neighbors, — inventing improved fireplaces, devising protection against fires, and organizing an academy of sciences. Years before the Revolution, his wide acquaintance with men of distinc tion in other colonies and in Europe, together with his re searches in electricity and other branches of science, made him a reaUy international figure. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES Winsor, America, V, ch. HI. Fiske, Dutch and Quaker General Colonies II, chs. XIV-XVII. Selected source material in Hart, re£erences. Contemporaries, II, ch. IV and nos. 72, 81, 94, 97, 106. Becker, C. L., Political Parties in New York, ch. I. Channing, New York. United States, II, 294-310, 483-489. Goodwin, M. W., Dutch and English on the Hudson, chs. X-XIV. Good contemporary account in Smith, W., History of New York (various editions, sources. including N. Y. Hist. Soc, Collections, First Series, IV, V); extract in Stedman and Hutchinson, Library of American Literature, II. Governors' letters in Documents relating lo the Colonial History of New York, especially V. Colden's letters in N. Y. Hist. Soc, Collections, L, LI. Channing, United States, II, ch. XI. Root, Relations of Penn- Pennsyl- sylvania with the British Government. Sharpless, Quaker Govern- vama- ment, I, and his Political Leaders of Provincial Pennsylvania. Biographies of Franklin by P. L. Ford, S. G. Fisher, W. C. Bruce, and others. Penn-Logan Correspondence (Penn. Hist. Soc, Memoirs). Readable Franklin's Autobiography. sources. Special students of constitutional history are referred to Political monographs by Shepherd (Pennsylvania), Fisher and Tanner "^t"'10113- (New Jersey), Spencer (New York). Channing, United States, II, ch. XIV. Bolton, C. K., Scotch- Immigration. Irish Pioneers, chs. III-VIII, XIV. Ford, H. J., Scotch-Irish in America, chs. I-XVI. Faust, A. B., German Element in the United States, especiaUy I, chs. III-V. Kuhns, O., German and Swiss Settlements of Colonial Pennsylvania. MeUick, A. D., Story of an Old Farm, especiaUy chs. Ill- VII, XI-XII (immigrant experiences). 310 EXPANSION IN THE MIDDLE PROVINCES Sources. The frontier and its problems. Religiouselements. Culture. Sources. Social and economicconditions. Pennsylvania German Society, Proceedings, XVIII (immi grant's diary). Rush, B., Manners of the German Inhabitants (Penn. German Soc, Proceedings, XTX). Turner, Frontier in American History, ch. III. Halsey, F. W., Old New York Frontier, and his Tour of Four Great Rivers. Walton, J. S., Conrad Weiser. Mcliwain, Wraxall's Abridgment, pp. lxiv ff . Jones, R., Quakers in America, bks. IV, V. Volumes in Ameri can Church History Series on Episcopal, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Dutch Reformed, German Reformed, and Moravian Churches. Cambridge History of American Literature, I, ch. VI. Cook, E. C, Literary Influences in Colonial Newspapers, chs. III-V. Oberholtzer, E. P., Literary History of Philadelphia, chs. I, H. Repplier, A., Philadelphia, the Place and the People, chs. III-VIH. Tyler, American Literature, II, ch. XVI. New Jersey Archives {Newspaper Extracts, I, H.) FrankUn, Writings (Smyth edition, I-III). Woolman, J., Diary. Kalm's Travels (Pinkerton, Voyages, XIII). Andrews, Colonial Folkways. Clark, V. S., History of Manu facturers in the U. S. Bond, B. W., Quitrent System in the American Colonies. CHAPTER XTV EXPANSION IN THE SOUTH In the last decade of the seventeenth century, the Different southern colonies were in various stages of development, vebpment?6" On Chesapeake Bay, Maryland and Virginia were securely established, — both for the time being under royal govern ments. In the tidewater section of these provinces, the colonial experience of three generations had taken shape in institutions, economic, poUtical, and religious, whose main features were fairly weU fixed. Half a century of remarka ble growth was to foUow, but largely on lines already indi cated. With the struggling and isolated settlements to the southward, it was quite another story. Thirty years after the Carolina proprietors secured their first charter, this great province was only slightly developed. On its northern edge, a few frontiersmen were raising corn, tobacco, and live stock, with sUght regard to the authority of the proprietors. Separated from these settlements by a long stretch of un occupied coast line was Charleston, the nucleus of a some what more orderly community. This southern settlement, though favored by the proprietors, had hardly yet found itself economicaUy or poUticaUy. In 1689, the Carolinas hardly numbered more than five thousand inhabitants be tween them. With two separate assemblies and no effective general government, their future political relations were stiU uncertain. Nominally Carolina extended to the twenty- ninth paraUel; forty years passed, however, before the found ing of Georgia definitely estabUshed British sovereignty beyond the Savannah. 3" 312 EXPANSION IN THE SOUTH Political re adjustment. Oppositionto the Carolinaproprietors. Complaintsof the home government. GraduaUy the political geography was readjusted. The Revolution of 1688 had upset Lord Baltimore's authority and put a royal government in its place; but in 17 15 a Prot estant Calvert reclaimed the famUy inheritance and Mary land again became a proprietary province. This relaxation of imperial control was, however, soon offset by the over throw of proprietary government in the Carolinas. In 1732, the British government went back to seventeenth century practice and entrusted the new colony of Georgia to a private corporation; but this government was recognized as temporary, and definite provision made for its reversion to the Crown. When, in 1754, royal government was estab lished in Georgia, the political subdivision of the coast line was complete from Delaware Bay to the Altamaha River. Beyond that point was the "no-man's land" of the Anglo-Spanish frontier. On the eve of the Revolution, the machinery of royal government was set up in every prov ince south of the Potomac. The South Carolina uprising of 1719, which overthrew the proprietary governments, was the culmination of in fluences at work for many years. The proprietary rights, originally held by some of the chief personages in EngUsh poUtics, graduaUy passed to men of inferior caliber less able to defend themselves against criticism; and of such criticism there was plenty on both sides of the Atlantic. Contrary to early expectations, CaroUna did not send to Eng land any staple comparable with West Indian sugar. North Carolina had Uttle commercial connection with England, and even the early development of rice culture about Charleston was stiU a smaU affair compared with the highly colored statements of fifty years before. Meantime royal agents were busy with reports of Ulegal trade and even more objectionable practices. No other province except perhaps the Bahamas had so bad a reputation for piracy as the Carolinas; even provincial officials were suspected UNREST IN CAROLINA 313 of a criminal interest in the business. There were other evidences of poor management. North Carolina, for in stance, attracted attention chiefly by a series of insurrections and smaU civU wars unparaUeled in the history of any other province. During Queen Anne's War, both the home gov ernment and the colonists felt that the proprietors had failed to do their part in defending the southern frontier. Then came two serious Indian wars, with the Tuscaroras in the north and the Yemassees in the south, and again the proprietors were found wanting. Notwithstanding this unsatisfactory record, the pro- Unrest in prietors had enough influence at court to save their char- Carolina. tered privUeges untU the South Carolina people finaUy took matters into their own hands. By 1719, the proprietors had graduaUy alienated almost every influential element in that province. The dissenters were exasperated by the Church Acts of 1704, put through by the high-church party Church under the governor's leadership. These acts not only I7^.° obliged them to pay church taxes but made them ineligible for membership in the assembly. Despairing of relief from the proprietors, they sent a mission to England which won over the Bishop of London by pointing out a clause in the law which interfered with his jurisdiction. The House of Lords finaUy took the matter up in an address to the Queen and there was serious talk of revoking the charter; but the proprietors were aUowed to keep the government, with the understanding that the obnoxious laws were to be re pealed, which was done shortly afterwards. Meantime the colonists had learned the possibUity of appealing over the heads of the proprietors to the imperial government. Before long, new issues united most of the colonists in The revolu- opposition, without regard to religious affiliations. In 1719 it was announced that the proprietors had disallowed some popular laws, including one regulating elections to the assembly. Until 1716 all these elections had been con- 314 EXPANSION IN THE SOUTH Royal gov ernment in South and North Carolina Southern expansion;population and settled centrated in Charleston, an arrangement which became increasingly inconvenient as tiie colony developed, besides giving too much influence to the officeholders. So in 1716 the assembly ordered that representatives should be chosen by elections in then respective districts. Unfortunately after one election had been held under the new law, the proprietors rejected it and ordered another election in Charleston on the old plan. New representatives were chosen accordingly; but they presently organized them selves into a revolutionary convention and, with the help of militia assembled to meet a threatened Spanish invasion, they upset the proprietary government, choosing a new governor to act temporarUy in the King's name. The home government promptly took advantage of this revolution and sent a provisional royal governor to Charles ton. The proprietary government held on in North Car olina, thus emphasizing stiU further the division of the old province; but most of the proprietors saw the futUity of trying to keep their control and in 1728 agreed to a bargain by which the government was given up. AU the propri etors but one also transferred their rights in the soU to the Crown. This bargain was confirmed by ParUament in 1729 and permanent royal governments were set up in North and South Carolina. For twenty years the two provinces had had almost nothing in common except their common subjection to the proprietors. Now the separation was complete. Even more significant than these poUtical changes was the steady expansion of the settlements. In 1689, the whole region south of Pennsylvania probably had less than 90,000 inhabitants. By 1760 this population had increased some seven or eight times, to about 700,000. About two thirds of these people stUl lived in the old Chesapeake provinces, but the rate of increase was naturally much faster in the younger colonies. For every colonist south of Virginia in GEORGIA FOUNDED 315 1689, there were probably at least forty in 1760. North CaroUna lagged behind for a time, but in the middle years of the eighteenth century it grew faster than any of its neighbors. At first the increase was largely in the tide water region. In Virginia and Maryland, the strip between the coast line and the faUs of the rivers had been fairly weU occupied in the seventeenth century; but during the next fifty years the settlements became more compact. In the Carolinas, the occupation even of the lowland country was delayed by great areas of swamp land and by the "pine barren" strip which lay only a short distance back from the sea. There were a number of new settlements on the coast like Wilmington in North Carolina and Georgetown in South CaroUna, but considerable stretches of coast line were still unoccupied. Meantime, the founding of Georgia pushed the international boundary southward beyond the Savannah River. A variety of motives worked together when James The found- Oglethorpe and his fellow trustees secured their charter Georgia. from the King in 1732. Oglethorpe was reaUy interested in giving poor but honest debtors a fresh chance in the New World. At the same time there was a good deal of sympathy for the German Protestants who had suffered persecution in the ecclesiastical principality of Salzburg and now sought refuge under the British flag. ImperiaUstic motives were also at work. The English fur traders had long been pushing through the mountains and around the southern end of the Appalachian system and the fate of ' the whole Southwest, from the mountains to the Mississippi, hung in the balance. Spaniards, Frenchmen, and English men were engaged in a triangular competition for trade with the Indians and for political influence as a means of extending that trade. Georgia was thus expected to com bine the advantages of a phUanthropic establishment, a military garrison against the Spaniards, and a base for the 316 EXPANSION IN THE SOUTH western fur trade. For such a colony something different from the older plantation settlements was needed. Regu lations were therefore made to keep the land distributed among smaU proprietors capable of defending themselves against hostile neighbors, and slavery was prohibited be cause a colony so near the frontier could not run the risk of slave insurrections. The expectations of the proprietors were not realized. A few debtors and foreign Protestants settled in the prov ince, and Georgia traders began to compete successfuUy with those of Carolina; but the growth of the colony was painfully slow and opposition to the poUcy of the trustees finaUy became too strong to be resisted. Before long Geor gia began to reproduce on a smaU scale the economic system of the South Carolina tidewater, with its large plantations, its rice culture, and its negro slaves. Develop- So far as the southern tidewater is concerned, the in- negro crease in population came largely through the involuntary slaveTrade.6 immigration of African negroes. During the seventeenth century the southern planters, having experimented with different systems of labor, decided that negro slavery was best suited for their purposes. Meantime British merchants and their government were organizing as never before for the exploitation of the slave trade. The prosperity of the Royal African Company stimulated competition, and before long "separate traders" from England and America broke down the company's monopoly. In 1713 the British slave-traders gamed a great advantage over Dutch and French rivals by the Asiento agreement, giving them the privilege of supplying slaves to the Spanish colonial market. There are no comprehensive statistics; but in 1734 it was estimated that about 70,000 slaves annuaUy were exported from Africa to the New World. The responsibUity for slavery in the English colonies must be widely distributed. British merchants, the im- POPULATION, BLACK AND WHITE 317 perial government, which defeated efforts on the part of colonial assembUes to check the trade, New England traders, and Southern planters, — each group must take its share. At any rate, the main results are quite clear. In 1689 slavery was just beginning to count largely in the indus trial life of Virginia; elsewhere on the continent slaves were few. Even in Virginia, the proportion of slaves to white men was probably less than one in ten. AU this was radicaUy changed in the next seventy years. Except in Maryland, Growth the white servant class gave way rapidly before the negroes, ptpuSion untU in 1760 the blacks formed about two fifths of the 1689-1760. whole southern population. In South Carolina, where labor on the hot, low-lying rice plantations was almost impos sible for Europeans, there were more than twice as many negroes as white men. In Virginia nearly half the popu lation was black, and in the tidewater district of that prov ince more than half. In Maryland, where white service stiU continued on a large scale, the proportion of slaves was smaUer; and in North CaroUna it was least of aU, the development of the lowland plantation district be ing overshadowed by the migration of smaU farmers into the back country. There was, of course, some additional white immigra- European tion on the seaboard. Virginia had a few hundred French unnugra on* Protestant immigrants at the beginning of the century, most of whom were soon thoroughly assimilated. A few Germans also came in a little later, some of whom settled at Germanna near the Rapidan River. Some of the Palatine emigrants of 1709 settled with a few Swiss in North Carolina, though the growth of this settlement was checked by Indian troubles. South Carolina had a sprinkling of non-EngUsh elements from the start, of whom the Huguenots were perhaps the most important. Between 1730 and 1750, new groups of non-EngUsh settlers took up land in this province, some in the lowlands and others in the piedmont area. Among them 3i8 EXPANSION IN THE SOUTH Colonizationof the uplands, Immigrants from the North. were Swiss, Germans, Scotch, Scotch-Irish, and Welsh. The sum total of this later white immigration to the southern lowlands was smaU, however, as compared with the great mass of negro immigrants, and the white society of the tide water was stiU dominated by people of EngUsh descent. It is this "old South" with its plantations and its numerous slaves whose doings are most prominent in southern history for the first half of the eighteenth century. Meantime, however, a "new South" was developing, sometimes in contact with the older society and shading into it, but often separated from it by great tracts of wU- derness. This new colonization of the uplands came in part by expansion from the seaboard, where the best lands were being concentrated in a comparatively few hands, making it necessary for less fortunate people to turn elsewhere. SmaU farmers who could not compete with slaveholding planters, servants hoping to set up for themselves when their service expired, weU- to-do land speculators, — aU helped in the settlement of the piedmont district. As these settle ments grew older, some of the characteristics of tidewater society were reproduced. Here also there were a few large plantations worked by negro slaves whose owners main tained the social traditions of the seaboard people. On the whole, however, the smaU farm rather than the large plan tation was the characteristic feature of this region, and the number of negroes was comparatively small. More important was the colonization of the interior by immigrants from the North. By the second quarter of the eighteenth century, many of the immigrants who came into Pennsylvania began to move southward along the eastern slopes of the Blue Ridge and through the Great VaUey of the Appalachian system. As the price of land rose in Penn sylvania, the Chesapeake colonies began to attract immi grants by offering more favorable terms. This was done not only by the colonial governments, but also by speculators TIDEWATER AND BACK COUNTRY 319 who had secured immense tracts which they were wUling to lease or seU on easy terms. Concessions were also made in the direction of greater reUgious Uberty. So the Germans and Scotch-Irish came in steadUy increasing numbers from Pennsylvania into Maryland and Virginia. In 1738 Virginia created two new counties west of the Blue Ridge, to provide for the new population; and in the fifties and sixties of that century thousands of these northern immigrants moved into the back country of North Carolina, transforming that colony from one of the smaUest on the continent into one of the largest. A somewhat smaUer number passed on into South CaroUna. As a result, then, of two great migrations, the South of Sectionalism the eighteenth century became quite different from that of soUth. the seventeenth. During the earlier period, it had been colonized almost entirely by white men, nearly all of whom were EngUsh. Now almost, if not quite, half the tidewater people were blacks, and in the back country, where negroes were comparatively few, the old English stock was out numbered by a combination of Scotch-Irish, Germans, and other minor elements. The "new South" and the "old South" were yoked together in the same provincial gov ernments; but in other respects they were far apart. The back-country people had more in common with those of their own kind who Uved to the northward or southward than with then feUow citizens on the eastern seaboard. From now on this east-and-west sectionaUsm appears in almost every phase of southern history. The increasing supply of negroes helped to fix the sys- character- tem of large plantations, and though there were stiU ^^^J^6 smaU farmers in the tidewater, they were relatively unim portant. Other influences were at work in the same di rection. Land could now be taken up without the actual Landed importation of new settlers, on payment of five shUlings per hundred acres. There were also Irregular practices 320 EXPANSION IN THE SOUTH Quitrenttroubles. Productsof the tidewater;tobacco,rice, and indigo. which enabled influential men to secure land on even easier terms. One third of the land recorded in 1704 on the rent roU of Henrico County, Virginia, on the edge of the tide water, was held by four persons, — in aU nearly 56,000 acres. One of these four persons was WiUiam Byrd of West- over, the founder of a notable landowning famUy, who bequeathed to his son, the second WiUiam Byrd, 26,000 acres, which the son increased before he died to nearly 180,000. This was exceptional, but a careful student has estimated that the "average weU- to-do Virginian of the period owned as much as three thousand acres." These great estates were kept together by the EngUsh rule of primogeniture, which on the death of the owner gave the famUy land undivided to the eldest son. The quitrent system made trouble everywhere. In Mary land these payments were due to the proprietors; in Vir ginia and the Carolinas, most of them went to the King, but there were troublesome exceptions. The "Northern Neck" in Virginia had been given away to Lord Culpeper, and was held in the eighteenth century by Lord Fairfax. Another strip in North Carolina was held by Lord Gran- viUe, the one CaroUna proprietor who had reserved his title to the land. Both these noblemen had then own rent roUs and their own collectors. Quitrents were somewhat better coUected in Maryland and Virginia than in the Carolinas; in North Carolina only a smaU amount was ever paid up. The southern plantations stiU concentrated largely on a few staples. For Maryland, Virginia, and a part of North Carolina the staple was tobacco; for South Carolina and Georgia it was rice, with the addition later of indigo. The tobacco planters had their fair share of difficulties. Waste ful methods of agriculture wore out the soU and many planters became land poor. Fluctuations in price were also trying, especiaUy when the long wars interfered with COMMERCE AND LABOR 32 1 shipping and brought prices down. People then began to talk about other industries, though without much per manent effect. The South Carolinians had simUar troubles with rice. Production had barely begun on a considerable scale when Parliament put rice in the list of enumerated articles which had to be shipped to England before its ex portation to any other European ports. The effect on the trade was so disastrous that ParUament later aUowed rice to be shipped to European countries souths of Cape Finis- terre. Even then, however, the South CaroUnians com plained that in the Mediterranean countries they had to meet foreign competition, whUe their best market was reaUy in northern Europe. Important as these staples were, even other the lowland South was not wholly given over to their pro- exp° duction. North CaroUna had its "naval stores" — pitch, tar, and turpentine — from the pine forests. Lumber was cut for export and some of it was used for shipbuUding, though on a smaUer scale than in the North. Cattle rais ing was important in the Carolinas and some provisions were exported from the southern colonies. Though the plentiful supply of negroes established slav- The labor ery as the prevaUing labor system of the tidewater, white white1 servants continued to come in. The importation of con- sernce- victs, promoted by act of Parliament, was fairly large, especially in Maryland, and colonial laws restricting it were disallowed by the King. "The Lads of Virginia, " a popular eighteenth-century EngUsh ballad, pictures the unhappy fate of a young offender, "sold for a slave in Virginia"; but many white servants were of a better sort and fared more comfortably, as, for instance, John Harrower, who, "being reduced to the last shilling," went to Virginia as a schoolmaster for bed, board, washing, and five pounds for his fuU term of four years. He was presently put in charge of a school on a Rappahannock plantation, where he taught his master's children and those of neighbor- 322 EXPANSION IN THE SOUTH ing planters. There were some skiUed workmen among the white servants, the best of whom subsequently acquired land for themselves. Slavery. There were some misgivings about negro slavery. Peter Fontaine, an AngUcan clergyman of Huguenot stock, spoke of it as the "original sin and curse of the country," but urged that when the colonists tried to restrict impor tation, their acts were commonly disapproved in England. Besides, he argued, the negroes had been first enslaved in Africa by men of their own color; and in any case, "to Uve in Virginia without slaves" was "moraUy impossible." Few people were much troubled by this ethical problem; but many realized that it might be unsafe to have too many of these half-savage people. It is this anxiety chiefly which explains the restrictive laws just mentioned as weU as the elaborate "patrol" systems adopted to control the negro population. South Carolina was especiaUy troubled, not only because of its large proportion of negroes but also because it was close to the Spanish border. In 1739 the colony was alarmed by a negro insurrection which was said to have been instigated by the Spaniards. The proportion of negroes to whites was never so great in the continental colonies as in the West Indies. In South CaroUna thirty slaves to a plantation was considered normal. In Virginia there were some large holdings; but the average was lower and there was more human contact between master and slave than in South CaroUna, where many negroes remained in a savage state. Efforts were made to Christianize and educate the negroes, and the AngUcan missionaries were expected to make this part of their work. The results were comparatively smaU, however, except for such dis cipline as seemed necessary to effective service in the fields and in the household. There was stiU much talk about establishing towns and concentrating trade at certain ports; but though some laws PROVINCIAL CENTERS 323 were passed, Uttle was accomphshed. Transatlantic as weU slight Un as coastwise commerce was stiU carried on at widely dis- of0ItheCe tributed points on the coast and on the chief navigable southem rivers. UntU the latter half of the eighteenth century, there was no considerable town in Maryland, Virginia, or North Carolina. Their provincial capitals — Annapolis, WiUiamsburg, and Wilmington — were hardly larger than country viUages, though dignified by the official resi dences of the governors and filled up temporarUy by the people who attended meetings of the colonial assembly or sessions of the provincial courts. The county seats were more insignificant stUl, except when elections were held or the county court was sitting. Norfolk, at the entrance of Chesapeake Bay, was said to have more "the air of a town" than any other place in Virginia, but it could not be com pared with any one of half a dozen northern towns. The development of Baltimore had barely begun and its later prosperity was due more to the wheat farmers of Mary land and Pennsylvania than to the plantations of the tide water. Charleston had a unique place in the South. It Exceptional .... .1,1 r, position of was not only a political capital but the center of almost Charleston. every kind of provincial activity. Here there was a sub stantial class of merchants with intercolonial and inter national relations comparable with those of Boston, New York, and PhUadelphia. Many planters also had town houses in Charleston. As one able student of southern history has put it, "Charleston was so complete a focus of commerce, poUtics, and society, that South Carolma was in a sense a city-state." In the broad strip of scattered settlements beyond the character- "fall line," there was room for many phases of economic the back development. On its outer edges in close contact with the country- Indians, hunting and fur trading went on side by side with cattle raising and the clearing of smaU fields for cultivation. Here there was no question of slaves, white or black; 324 EXPANSION IN THE SOUTH Products of the back country. Economicproblems of the back country. it was a society of freemen, developing on lines of equal opportunity. In some counties of the piedmont a good deal of pioneer simplicity existed side by side with farms of moderate size employing, as Patrick Henry did in his early married life, half a dozen negro slaves. The most efficient agriculture of the South was to be found among the Scotch-Irish and German farmers of the Great VaUey. Here, as in Pennsylvania, the Germans distinguished them selves by their selection of the most productive lands, their capacity for hard work, and their consequent prosperity. Many settlements were made in a quite individuaUstic and isolated fashion; but throughout this region there were also groups of pioneers who settled together for common defense or on the basis of common religious interests. Com munity settlements were especiaUy characteristic of such German sects as the Mennonites and Moravians. One such Moravian community was Wachovia, founded in 1753 in the back country of North Carolina. Separated by long distances from the seaboard, these interior settlements were forced to make the necessaries of life for themselves. Their chief business was the raising of foodstuffs — cattle and grain, especiaUy wheat. By the middle of the eighteenth century, the wheat production of the back country was gaining rapidly on the tobacco of the tidewater. The frontier had not only to raise its own food, but also to engage in the simpler forms of manufac ture. Flour mUls were set up; homespun clothing was prepared at home; in the -villages of the Great VaUey, there were wagonmakers, shoemakers, gunsmiths, and arti sans of other essential trades. As the new settlements prospered they felt more and more the need of outlets for their surplus products. Cattle could be driven to market, but the transportation of wheat and flour was more difficult. Nevertheless, these products were hauled to the seaboard in considerable quantities for consumption there or for SOUTHERN POLITICS 325 export. The Shenandoah vaUey traded more with Balti more and PhUadelphia than with tidewater Virginia; but in South Carolina the Charleston district began, after a time, to get from the back country foodstuffs previously imported from New York and PhUadelphia. NaturaUy the upland farmer had a keen interest in internal improvements, such as the budding of bridges and roads in place of Indian traUs. WhUe the back country was laying the economic foun- Southern dations of future power, it was leaving poUtics largely to Maryland the tidewater planters and merchants. The monarchical *?4 Vir" r _ ginia. principle was stronger in the southern governments than in the North. In Maryland, the proprietor and his gov ernor had, in spite of many vigorous controversies, much more power than Penn and his agents in Pennsylvania. From the imperial point of view, Virginia probably came nearer to being a model province than any other on the continent. The consent of the assembly was necessary for new laws or taxes; but the governor was the real, as weU as the nominal, chief executive. WhUe the governors of New York and Massachusetts were dependent on temporary votes of the assembly for their salaries and other ordinary charges, the Virginia governor drew his salary, by royal order, from a permanent fund which the assembly had set apart for this purpose. The quitrents formed another permanent fund, controUed not by the assembly but by the Crown. WhUe Maryland was under royal government, her assembly also estabUshed a permanent fund and, in spite of protests from the assembly, the governor's salary was paid from it even after the proprietor had been restored. In the Carolinas, the governor was less fortunate. In Carolina North Carolina, his salary was supposed to be paid from p0 the quitrents; but the cooperation of the assembly was necessary in order to coUect them, and this cooperation was not forthcoming, so the governor's income was quite 326 EXPANSION IN THE SOUTH The council ors and the local aris tocracy. Character of the lower house. precarious. In South Carolina the governor was as badly off as in New York. He had to take what the assembly saw fit to give him from year to year and was often forced to accept measures which encroached upon his legitimate authority. Governor Glen declared in 1748 that executive power was largely in the hands of commissioners appointed by the assembly. Yet the difference between a strong royal government like Virginia and a weak one like South Carolina was only one of degree. Even in Virginia the governor had to go to the assembly (House of Burgesses) for supphes to meet emergencies and had to make conces sions in return. Even there, the provincial treasurer was appointed not by the governor, according to the official theory, but by act of assembly. For many years this office was combined with that of speaker of the House of Burgesses. In the South, as in the North, the governor could not always count upon the support of the councilors, even though they were appointed by the Crown. EspeciaUy influential were the Virginia councUors. Chosen as they usuaUy were from the principal landowning famUies and having also influential connections with British officials and merchants, it was not easy for the governor to manage them. An energetic governor sometimes undertook to re form abuses in which councUors had a direct interest; but such efforts were often unsuccessful. More easy-going officials secured smooth administration by yielding to the wishes of the provincial poUticians. In South CaroUna, where politics turned largely on the conflict of interests between planters and merchants, councUors were frequently chosen from the latter class, which was naturaUy more conservative on such questions as the issue of paper money. To what extent the representative house, variously known as burgesses, commons, or simply assembly, can be regarded as really democratic is not an altogether simple question. SOUTHERN LEADERS 327 Though the suffrage was limited by property qualifications, The suffrage. the proportion of actual voters in the white population seems to have been as large as in the North, if not larger. This is not surprising since the white total for the South included a much smaller proportion of the working class, which was there composed largely of negro slaves. To a conservative gentleman Uke Governor Spotswood, the Vir ginia House of Burgesses seemed at times much too dem ocratic, being chosen "from the meaner sort of people." SimUar complaints were made elsewhere. The efficiency of popular control varied according to the Extent of personal qualities of the governor, the leading councUors, ^tIo{. and the popular leaders. Spotswood, in spite of his remarks about the "meaner sort of people," had previously prided himself on his abUity to manage an assembly. HostUe critics also complained that governors could bear down opposition through their control of the patronage and their right to pro rogue and dissolve assembUes. Conflicts between the councU and the lower house were frequent here as elsewhere, the latter especiaUy insisting on its right to frame money biUs without amendment by the councU. Nevertheless, the leadmg famUies, which were represented in the council, un doubtedly had great influence also in the lower house. It is not worth whUe to dweU on minor poUticians and Southern the detaUs of provincial poUtics. A few southern leaders, however, deserve notice either for what they did or because they Ulustrate important phases of colonial life. Of the southern governors during the first half of the eighteenth century, Alexander Spotswood seems to deserve the leading Governor place usuaUy assigned to him. A Scotchman by birth, ^ like his two immediate successors, he came to Virginia in 1710 to begin his twelve years' service as lieutenant governor. In his time, as during the next half century, the lieutenant governor was the resident head of the administration, the nominal governor being a distinguished British noble, who 328 EXPANSION IN THE SOUTH drew a considerable salary but did not think it necessary to live in the province. Unlike many other governors, Spotswood did not leave the province after his removal from office and may be considered a real Virginian. A sturdy fighter himself, he had to face councUors who were equaUy determined; but in spite of their opposition he managed to reform some abuses in land administration. He was an active promoter of WiUiam and Mary CoUege, then a young, struggling institution; cooperated with other governments in breaking up piracy; and took an active interest in west ward expansion, personally leading an expedition over the Blue Ridge. Unfortunately, he antagonized so many influ ential men, including the Bishop of London's commissary, James Blair, that he was finaUy removed from office. This was not, however, the end of Spotswood's public service. He interested himself in the manufacture of iron and in 1730 he was made deputy postmaster-general for America. Just before his death in 1740, he was busy helping to organize a mUitary expedition against the Spaniards. WiUiam One of Spotswood's chief opponents was WiUiam Byrd II, Byfd "• who belonged to a great landowning famUy which kept its place in the councU for three generations. WiUiam Byrd H was a councUor for thirty-seven years and for a short time president of the councU. Like his father before him, he held also for several years the office of receiver-general of quitrents. A strenuous defender of his personal and class interests, he was also a man of cultivated tastes. He had been educated in England, was a member of the Royal Society, and gathered at his beautiful estate of Westover on the James one of the largest and best-selected libraries in America. His best monument, however, is the coUection of his Writings, published long after his death and containing among other things a charming description of his friendly visit to the plantation of his former antagonist, Governor Spotswood. Most familiar of aU is his picturesque, if unfair, William Bykd, II ASSEMBLY LEADERS 329 description of the North Carolina countrymen. "They keep," he said, "so many sabbaths every week that their disregard of the seventh day has no manner of cruelty in it either to servants or cattle." Among the ablest leaders of popular parties in the pro- Popular vincial assemblies two men may be mentioned as fairly typi- Ieaders- cal: Daniel Dulany, the elder, of Maryland, and Charles Pinckney of South Carolina. Dulany, beginning as a poor Dulany. immigrant from Ireland, became a large landowner, as weU as a leader at the bar. Though he held office as attorney- general under the proprietor, he led the lower house in a memorable fight to secure for Maryland certain advantages of the English statute law. Pinckney, unlike Dulany, was Pinckney. born into an influential famUy, and his wife, Eliza Lucas, was not only a fine personality but a capable plantation man ager. He, too, rose to high office, serving first as attorney- general and then as chief justice. He was also for a time speaker of the lower house and a strenuous defender of its privUeges, including the exclusive control of money bUls. Having been educated in England, Pinckney emphasized English precedents. The South Carolinians, he argued, were entitled to all the rights of Englishmen, and their rep resentative house had the same rights in this respect as the House of Commons in England. Both these American defenders of the "rights of Englishmen" gave their sons a legal education in the famous "Middle Temple" in London. It is worth noting that Dulany's son argued against the Stamp Act and that one of the younger Pinckneys helped to frame the Federal Constitution of 1787. During most of this period, the older settlements con- Sectionalism troUed provincial politics without serious difficulty. When new counties were formed and their population grew, the seaboard districts insisted on more than a fair share of the representation. Because of this under-representation of the interior counties, their special interests were naturaUy 33° EXPANSION IN THE SOUTH Establishedchurches. Anglican Church in Virginia. Dissenters. neglected. Insufficient provision was often made for local government, the administration of justice, and public improvements of special importance to the frontiersmen. In the next generation, this conflict between tidewater and back country, and the effort of the latter, under the leader ship of men Uke Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson, to break the exclusive control of the old ruling class, had an important relation to the struggle with the mother country. The Church of England stiU had an important part in southern society. Its status as a state church entitled to pubhc support was recognized in aU the colonies from Mary land to South CaroUna; and, except in North CaroUna, the establishment was fairly effective. In the Carolinas, this official support was supplemented by the missionary work of the Society for Propagating the Gospel. Taking the period as a whole, however, the estabUshed church lost ground as compared with the dissenters; so much so that when the Revolution of 1776 cut off the support of the British govern ment, the separation of church and state became compara tively easy. Of aU the colonies, Virginia seemed most thoroughly grounded in AngUcan principles. In 1699, when the assem bly passed its first toleration act, there were only a few dissenters, chiefly Quakers and Presbyterians. Here as in other colonies, however, the colonial church suffered by not having its normal organization. The Bishop of Lon don's commissary had Uttle authority and was involved in frequent disputes with the governor and with the planters who formed the parish vestries. The status of the ministers, who, instead of being permanently inducted were commonly "hired" from year to year, was far from dignified. Many of the clergy did good work, even under this lax system, but others neglected their duties and thus weakened the influence of the church. Meantime the dissenters were becoming more numerous, CHURCH AND STATE 33 1 partly because the government itself made concessions to prospective settlers, especiaUy on the frontier. In the Great VaUey, as a result of Scotch-Irish and German immigration, the AngUcan churchmen found themselves in a minority among the Presbyterians, Lutherans, and other sects. To encourage the Presbyterians, Governor Gooch not only prom ised the restricted toleration recognized by law but in prac tice went even farther. So the reUgious Ufe of the VaUey was guided by a great variety of preachers, some of whom took long missionary journeys through the frontier settle ments from Pennsylvania to the Carolinas. From the An gUcan point of view, this was undesirable; but, just as the EngUsh government had been wffling to aUow overseas a degree of religious toleration not considered safe at home, so many Virginia churchmen did not mind having their frontiers secured by people whose religious ideas were not entirely orthodox. Presently, however, dissent began to grow nearer home. The Great Some of the northern immigrants moved into the piedmont anTtne"18 and so came in contact with AngUcans who had moved up {jfj^^ from the tidewater. About the same time, echoes of the Great Awakening began to reach these middle counties and create a demand for a different kind of religious teaching from that furnished by the estabUshed church. These conditions, to gether with increasing friction between the Anglican clergy and laity, gave the Presbyterians especiaUy an opportunity of which they quickly took advantage, to the annoyance of the AngUcan party. The latter now demanded a stricter enforcement of the law requiring ministers and places of worship to be Ucensed by the civU authorities and thus restricting considerably the traveling preachers. Dissenters who faUed to observe these rules were fined for nonattendance at church and ministers were sometimes refused licenses. Under the able leadership of Samuel Davies, afterwards president of Princeton, the Presbyterian clergy appealed to 332 EXPANSION IN THE SOUTH Church and state in Marylandand the Carolinas. Preponder ance of the dissenters. the home government, which declared in favor of a more Uberal poUcy. Meantime the need of cooperation against the French, together with the mUitant patriotism of the Presbyterians, turned public opinion toward a more liberal poUcy. The fight for simple toleration was now practicaUy won and before the Revolution the dissenters outnumbered the adherents of the estabUshed church. Complete separa tion of church and state and the aboUtion of church taxes did not come, however, untU after the Revolution. In Maryland also, the AngUcan estabUshment was fairly strong at the close of the seventeenth century, though dissenters were more numerous than in Virginia. The Catho Ucs, though only a persecuted minority, had a social pres tige out of proportion to their numbers. The Quakers kept up a persistent fight against church taxes and there was always a strong Puritan element, later reenforced, as in Vir ginia, by Germans and Scotch-Irish Presbyterians. Here, too, the unfortunate character of some of the clergy weakened the establishment and prepared the way for its final over throw. In North Carolina, the Quakers were first in the field and the dissenters gained a lead which was confirmed by later immigration. In South Carolina, Anglicans and dissenters were for a time more nearly equal, especiaUy since the JHuguenots were inclined; to sympathize with the AngUcans. Here also, however, the up-country population ultimately gave the dissenters a decided majority. So before the Revolution the reUgious complexion of the South was radicaUy changed. The AngUcan Church had the greatest prestige in the tidewater; but in the back country it was overshadowed by the dissenters, of whom the strongest and most aggressive were the Presbyterians. These Puritans of the South looked for inspiration and lead ership, not to the older settlements of their own provinces or to England, but to the northern presbyteries of New York and PhUadelphia, or, going stUl farther back, to those EDUCATION IN THE SOUTH 333 of Scotland and Ulster. They were often quite as intense in their ecclesiastical partisanship as the Anglicans; but contact with men of different faiths graduaUy developed among the frontier people a spirit of mutual toleration. In this respect the South drifted much farther from seven teenth-century conditions than Puritan New England. Educational development in the South differed from that Educational of New England chiefly in the fact that the former section, eve opment• because of its scattered and largely rural population, could not establish effective state systems of elementary education and consequently depended more largely on private initia tive, combined with the efforts of the clergy. Regarding the actual progress of education in the two sections, extreme claims have been made on both sides and more scientific study of the subject is necessary before a just statement can be made. It is certain, however, that this period in southern history is marked by some notable advances in education. The only institution of coUegiate grade was WUliam and William Mary CoUege, founded, after a long period of prelimmary college?17 discussion, largely through the efforts of that energetic Scottish churchman, Commissary James Blair, who secured the royal charter in 1693. Blair himself was president for fifty years, his associates were generally clergymen, and reUgious training was emphasized. The coUege was supported by quitrents, provincial appropriations, and private gifts; but many years passed before it gave anything more than the most elementary instruction; and even after 1729, when its faculty consisted of President Blair and six professors, it resembled other colonial colleges in being little more than an academy. It had, however, some able English and Scotch teachers, who trained many of the future leaders in Virginia poUtics. Some weU-to-do Southerners sent their sons abroad, ^cation In the first three quarters of the eighteenth century, fourteen Virginians went to Oxford and eight to Cambridge. Others 334 EXPANSION EST THE SOUTH studied in such famous EngUsh "pubffc schools" as Eton and Harrow. South CaroUna, which had no coUege of its own, probably sent a larger proportion of its young men to England than any other province. A fair number of Southerners got their legal training in the English Inns of Court. Of the seventy colonials who entered the Middle Temple before 1760, more than half came from Virginia and Maryland. If aU the entries down to 1775 are included, the South furnished more than two thirds, with South CaroUna in the lead. The inteUeetual training of the educated leaders was distinctly EngUsh, whether received in England or through Oxford and Cambridge graduates in America. How important this influence was may be seen by studying the representative Virginians and South Caro linians of the Revolutionary era. Of the seven Virginians who signed the Declaration of Independence, four had been students at WiUiam and Mary, one at Cambridge University, and another at an EngUsh academy. Four "Middle Templars" signed the Declaration of Independence for South Carolina and three were members of the Federal Convention from that state. Elementary Elementary education was provided in various ways. education. There were some endowed schools in every colony. Many of the AngUcan clergy kept schools in connection with their parish work and some of them were real scholars. Some times groups of planters combined to buUd schoolhouses and provide masters for their chUdren. Private tutors were also employed, especiaUy by the wealthier famUies. No exact statement can be made as to the amount of education thus furnished; but a careful study of the advertisements in the South Carolina Gazette indicates that there were in that colony between 1733 and 1774, nearly two hundred persons engaged as tutors, schoolmasters, or schoolmistresses. Among the subjects taught were French, Latin, and Greek. There were schools for girls as well as boys. Provision was INTELLECTUAL INTERESTS 335 also made in the South, as elsewhere, for training chUdren of the poorer classes, especiaUy in connection with apprentice ship to a trade. The first southern newspaper was the Maryland Gazette, Newspapers. founded in 1727; then came the South Carolina Gazette in 1732 and the Virginia Gazette in 1736. The first and last were founded by WiUiam Parks, who in 1741 added to his printing shop at WiUiamsburg a bookstore with an assortment of ancient and modern classics. There were some private libraries; the largest and most comprehensive was that of the Byrds at Westover, which finaUy grew to over 3000 volumes. Rev. Thomas Bray, one of the founders of the So ciety for Propagating the Gospel, estabhshed a number of smaU lending Ubraries for the clergy, and in 1743 a few book- lovers founded the Charleston Library Society. The chief inteUeetual centers of the South were WUUams- intellectual burg and Charleston. WiUiamsburg was the residence the South. of the Virginia governors, who were, sometimes at least, men of cultivated tastes and broad interests, like Spotswood, or Fauquier, who half a century later stimulated, if he did not altogether improve, young Virginians of Jefferson's time. Here also were the provincial printing press, the principal book shop, and the College of WiUiam and Mary with its faculty recruited from the British universities. The drama, too, had its place; the Williamsburg theater, buUt about 1716, was probably the first in America. Charleston had no coUege, but it was a real city, with perhaps the most culti vated society to be found anywhere in America. Here in the middle years of the eighteenth century the South Caro linians had a chance to hear scientific lectures, good concerts, and some EngUsh plays. InteUeetual interests of the kind just described were Education confined to a small class, even in the tidewater. In the newer settlements. settlements educational opportunities were naturaUy more limited and progress, when it came, was on quite different 336 EXPANSION IN THE SOUTH lines. Here, too, religion and education were closely asso ciated; but the dissenting ministers took the place of the AngUcan clergy; especiaUy significant was the work of the Scotch and Irish Presbyterians. After the establishment of Princeton College its graduates took an active part in the education of the "new South," though their influence was not strongly felt untU just before the Revolution. By that time^! Princeton was attracting a number of southern students, among them James Madison, who helped to frame the Virginia constitution of 1776 and the Federal Consti tution of 1787. ' General accounts.Sources, general. Virginia. Sources. Maryland. TheCarolinas. BD3LIOGRAPHICAL NOTES Fiske, Old Virginia, II, 162-400. Winsor, America, V, chs. rv-vi. Hart, Contemporaries, II, chs. V, VI, nos. 82, 83, 106. Burnaby, A., Travels (Pinkerton, Voyages, XIII). Quincy, J., Journal (1773) (Mass. Hist. Soc, Proceedings, XLIX). Bassett, J. S., Writings of Colonel William Byrd, Introduc tion. Meade, W., Old Churches, Ministers, and Families of Virginia. Stannard, M. N., Colonial Virginia. Ford, W. C, Washington, I, ch. VII. Rowland, K. M., George Mason, I, chs. II, III. Tyler, L. G., Williamsburg. Beveridge, A. J., John Marshall,!, 19-60 (back-country conditions). DetaUed study of poUtical institutions by P. S. FUppin in Columbia Univ. Studies. Byrd's Writings. Maury, A., Memoirs of a Huguenot Family. Fithian, P. V., Journal and Letters. Harrower, J., Diary {Am. Hist. Review, VI, 65-107). Jones, H., Present State of Virginia (1724; partial reprint in Stedman and Hutchinson, Library oj American Literature, II, 279-287). Spotswood, A., Official Letters (Virginia Hist. Soc, Collections, New Series, I, II). Mereness, Maryland as a Proprietary Province, especiaUy pp. 437~459 and Pt- I> chs. IV, V. Articles by Sioussat, in Johns Hopkins Studies, XXI, nos. VI, VII, XI, XII. Ashe, S. A., North Carolina, chs. XIII-XX, XXIII, especially chs. XTX, XXIII. Channing, United States, II, ch. XII. McCrady, South Carolina, 1670-171Q, especiaUy chs. XXVIII-XXX; and BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 337 his South Carolina, 1710-1775, especiaUy chs. XVI-XXVI. Hugh- son, S. C, Carolina Pirates {Johns Hopkins Studies). Ravenel, H. H., Charleston, chs. IV-X. Schaper, W. A., Sectionalism and Representation in South Carolina. DetaUed descriptions of gov ernment in Smith, W., South Carolina, and Raper, C. L., North Carolina. SaUey, A. S., Narratives of Early Carolina, 211-373. Glen, J., Description of South Carolina (in CarroU, Collections of South Carolina II). Greene, Provincial America, ch. XV. Jones, C. C, Georgia, I. Biographies of Oglethorpe, by H. A. Bruce and R. Wright. For governmental detaUs see McCain, J. R., Georgia as a Proprietary Province. Charter in Macdonald, Select Charters, no. 49. Channing, United States, II, 376-398. PhiUips, U. B., Ameri can Negro Slavery, chs. I-V and his Plantation and Frontier (sources). Faust, German Element, I, chs. VI-IX. Ford, Scotch-Irish, ch. XIV and later chapters passim. Turner, Frontier in American History, ch. III. Moravian diaries in Virginia Mag. of Hist, and Biog., XI, XII. Perry, W. S., American Episcopal Church, I. Mcllwaine, H. R., Struggle of the Protestant Dissenters {Johns Hopkins Studies). Good studies of reUgion in North Carolina by S. B. Weeks in Johns Hopkins Studies, X, XI. McLaughlin, A. C, et al., Source Problems in U. S. History, 183-235. Tyler, American Literature, II, Ch. XVII. Cook, Literary Influences in Colonial Newspapers, chs. VI-VIII. Jernegan, Educational Development of the Southern Colonies {School Review, 1919). Tyler, L. G., Education in Colonial Virginia (William and Mary College Quarterly, V, VI, VII). Motley, James Blair {Johns Hopkins Studies). Sources. Founding of Georgia. Slavery. Immigration, expansion,and frontier society. Religion. Culture. CHAPTER XV ENGLISH AND AMERICAN WAYS "We hope to plant a nation Where none before hath stood." These lines, written by one of the Virginia pioneers, of 1610, perhaps express the feeling of his more thought ful comrades, at a time when the fate of the young colony stUl hung in the balance. What kind of nation he was dreaming of one can only guess, but it was certainly nothing remotely resembling the American nation of the twentieth century. It is interesting, however, for the moment to place ourselves midway between these two points in time and see what elements of a new nationality can be traced after a century and a half of colonial development. The thirteen It must be remembered, first, that the thirteen colonies their neigh- which were to become the nucleus of a new American nation s* were closely associated with other EngUsh provinces which have had quite a different history. To think of the "thir teen" as having a clear group consciousness, marking them off sharply from all other settlements and uniting them to each other, would be to read back into the past the thought of later generations. With the fishing stations of Newfound land and the sugar islands of the West Indies, the continental colonies had relations too close to be broken without serious inconvenience. PoUticaUy also the mainland colonies had much in common with the West Indies. The constitutional controversies of Barbados and Jamaica were often much like those of the continental colonies. It is equaUy true that within the traditional group of thirteen there were sharp 338 interests. cations.! MEANS OF COMMUNICATION 339 conflicts of interest and radically different traditions. A South Carolina planter of 1750 would probably have felt himseff more at home in Barbados than in Boston. Nevertheless, the developments of the eighteenth century Common were graduaUy bringing the continental colonies closer to each other and giving them some common interests which were not so fuUy shared by the island settlements. One of these developments was the improvement of land communi cations. In the seventeenth century, nearly aU intercolonial trade was carried on by sea. In those days Charleston was for practical purposes not much farther from the West Indies than from New England. In the eighteenth century, Communj- this sea trade was stiU most important; but with the devel opment of the interior more attention was paid to roads and bridges. By 1739, a complete series of post routes had been estabUshed from Portsmouth, New Hampshire, to Charleston, South Carolina; and, with increasing population, the wUdemess intervals between successive stations were graduaUy getting shorter. Meantime Indian traUs were taking shape as recognized highways through the upland country from New York and Pennsylvania to Georgia. All along this north-and-south line were settlers, to whom the island colonies were far off indeed, but who had much in common with their fellow landsmen in other provinces. To the twentieth-century man with his railroads and motor cars, his telegraph and telephone, these primitive beginnings of colonial intercourse seem poor indeed. Roads were bad, almost impassable rivers often blocked the way, and even tolerable lodgings were quite uncertain. Journeys now counted in hours then took as many days. Yet an increasing number of travelers were braving the hardships and dangers of the road, letters were passing to and fro, and newspapers were beginning to bring the inhabitants of each colony some information at least about the business and poUtics of then- fellow provincials. 34° ENGLISH AND AMERICAN WAYS Conflictwith insular interests. Elementsof unity. The English language. Dutch and German ele ments. WhUe intercolonial barriers were thus becoming less formidable on the continent, the northern colonies especiaUy were keenly conscious of a conflict of interests between them selves and the British West Indies. So far, the latter were stiU the favorite chUdren of the imperial family, as ParUa ment showed when it passed the Molasses Act of 1733; but the continental group with its expanding population, territory, and wealth was getting a new sense of its own im portance. On the eve of the last French War, the population of the continental colonies was rapidly approaching a miUion and a half, a smaU figure as compared with the national states of the present day, but enough to make a respectable poUti cal community when judged by eighteenth-century stand ards. It seems worth whUe, therefore, to ask whether there were among these provincial Americans any common ele ments of a new civilization sufficiently differentiated from that of England to justify us in calling it American rather than EngUsh. In race and language, the Americans of 1750 were of course predominantly British. So far as language was con cerned the predominance was overwhelming. In New Eng land, the non-English element was weakest and racial consciousness was felt, even when the people were most resentful of British poUcies. The same John Adams who led the fight for the Declaration of Independence wrote only a few months earUer that among the chief advantages of his own New England was its "purer English blood," less "mixed" than any other. Elsewhere the problem was not so simple. In New York, the traveler of 1 750 found Dutch stiU the prevaUing language of Albany and some of the smaUer viUages, though in the province as a whole EngUsh was increasing its lead as the younger generation of Dutchmen graduaUy gave up the mother tongue. In New York, also, was the northern end of an important series of German settlements, extending southward through Pennsylvania LITERARY INFLUENCES 341 and the Shenandoah vaUey to the new colony of Georgia. Here were communities taught by German-trained clergy, speaking the German language, reading the Bible in Luther's translation instead of the King James version, depending for information on German newspapers and German calendars. Only in Pennsylvania, however, was the German stock more than a smaU minority before the Revolution. The proportion in Pennsylvania was perhaps a third of the total population; in the thirteen colonies as a whole, the proportion was per haps a Uttle over one in ten. The only other non-EngUsh stocks which came in large numbers before 1750 were the Scotch and the Scotch-Irish, both for the most part EngUsh- speaking though with distinct national or racial feelings of their own. In poUtics and the shaping of political insti tutions, the men of EngUsh speech, and even of English descent, had a greater advantage than statistics indicate, because the non-EngUsh people were largely newcomers, who had scarcely found their bearings. They were also, except in New York, largely massed in the interior counties, which were not fuUy represented in the colonial assembUes. Through their common language, educated Americans Common shared with other EngUshmen of their day a common Utera- uterature. ture and the traditional ideals which that Uterature expressed. EasUy first in this common Uterature was the King James version of the Bible, the one great book of the "plain people" of EngUsh speech on both sides of the Atlantic. Shakespeare and other classics of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were neglected in America, as indeed they were by EngUsh men at home; but there was an educated class which read, and was influenced by, contemporary EngUsh essayists, novel ists, and playwriters. Some continental writers, Uke the Dutch pubhcist Grotius, the German Puffendorf, and the later French thinkers Voltaire and Montesquieu, were known to a few Americans in their original texts or in English translations; but EngUsh books on theology and poUtics 342 ENGLISH AND AMERICAN WAYS English fashions. Englishtraditions in government. Englishprecedentsin the colonial assemblies. were the most famiffar of aU to the educated leaders ol provincial society. Hundreds of young Americans formed their ideas upon, or adapted to their purposes, the poUti cal phUosophies of Algernon Sidney and John Locke. In some externals the older communities seemed to become more rather than less English. WeU-to-do merchants and planters foUowed the fashions of old England in their houses, furniture, and dress. EngUsh engravings were com mon in their houses and guests were served on the best Enghsh china. The landed gentry of Virginia and New York cultivated the sports of country squires on the other side, even importing EngUsh foxes for the pur pose. In short, as one EngUshman said, in 1 7 7 1 , there seemed to be Uttle difference in the "manner of a wealthy colonist and a wealthy Briton." In more important matters, most Americans beUeved themselves to be foUowing the substance, if not the letter, of EngUsh tradition. As one colonial government after another was remodeled, the people who hved under it came to regard it as a miniature copy of the EngUsh constitution. The governor was not a hereditary monarch; but, theoreti- caUy at least, the prerogatives which he defended with more or less success were those of the King whom he represented. The councUors who formed the upper house had no such independent status as the nobles and bishops who sat in the House of Lords; but in New York and Virginia especiaUy they represented to a considerable extent the leading fami hes of the province. Above aU, the assembly stood for the EngUsh principle of representation, a kind of representation enjoyed in those days by none of the great nations of con tinental Europe. Under various names, — burgesses, commons, or represent atives, — the members of these provincial assembUes regarded themselves as legitimate heirs, within their limited field, to the great traditions of the EngUsh House of Commons. POLITICAL PRECEDENTS 343 Even in formal procedure, English parliamentary practice was closely foUowed. At WiUiamsburg and New York, as at Westmmster, the representatives of the property holders were summoned or dismissed by the King or his representa tive, but whUe in session they chose their own speakers, claimed the same privUege of free debate, and administered similar rules of procedure. Messages and addresses passed between governor and assembly, or assembly and councU, much as they did between Commons and King, or Commons and Lords. Doubtless colonial advocates were not always consistent. They could find reasons why the governor should not exercise aU the prerogatives of the Crown and they some times denounced councUors for claiming the privUeges of the House of Lords; but they were practicaUy unanimous in insisting that English precedents held good on their own side of the argument. Above aU, they asserted their exclusive right to grant the people's money and determine how it should be spent. In matters Uke this, Massachusetts, New York, and South CaroUna, with aU their differences, were substan tially agreed. Orthodox EngUsh lawyers did not accept this reasoning and insisted that a colonial assembly was scarcely more than a municipal corporation; but this official theory did not appeal to the colonists. Local government, which came much closer to daUy Local life, was naturaUy more influenced by the special needs of a new country and the particular needs of each section — its physical environment, its economic development, or the distinctive ideals of its founders. Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia worked out four quite different systems of county government. Yet in all these colonies the EngUsh county reappeared in some form. Boroughs organized on the EngUsh model were not so common; but, nearly everywhere, under different names and varying forms, there was something corresponding roughly to the English parish. Justices of the peace, sheriffs, and con- 344 ENGLISH AND AMERICAN WAYS English traditions of personal liberty. The common law in the colonies. stables were equaUy famUiar to EngUshmen on both sides of the water. Virginia with its county courts and parish vestries came closest to the old model; but everywhere the Americans of 1750 cherished the EngUsh tradition of local self-government, controUed by general laws yet ready to assert itself on occasion against the central authority. More vital to the ordinary man than governmental forms was the protection of individual Uberty against ar bitrary interference. In defending this Uberty, eighteenth- century Americans generaUy used EngUsh precedents, put ting into them much that would have seemed strange to their medieval authors. This reading of new ideas into old documents was, however, a weU-recognized EngUsh habit on both sides of the Atlantic. When, therefore, the Massachusetts representatives claimed to find in Magna Carta a good argument against giving their governor a permanent salary, they were certainly twisting that famous document, but doing it in quite the traditional EngUsh manner. Long before the Revolution, Americans had learned to talk also of natural rights, again with good Eng Ush authorities, Uke Hooker and Locke, to support them; but their most confident appeal was to the "rights of Eng lishmen." Old John Wise of Ipswich made himself obnox ious to His Majesty's government of New England in 1687, but in 1 710 he founded his opposition to absolutism, partly, at least, on EngUsh traditions. The EngUsh people, he said, had been "through immemorial ages" "the owner of very fair enfranchisements and Uberties"; "Englishmen hate an arbitrary power (poUticaUy considered) as they hate the devU." For enforcing the "rights of EngUshmen," the colonists depended largely on the common law as administered through the courts of justice. Their claim to share in this inheritance was based in part upon such royal declarations as that made in the Virginia charter of 1606, that English THE COMMON LAW 345 subjects born in the proposed new settlements should "enjoy all Liberties, Franchises, and Immunities" "as if they had been abiding and born, within this our Realm of England." They could strengthen this argument by Brit ish legal opinions like that of Richard West, counsel to the Board of Trade, who declared in 1720 that wherever an EngUshman went he took "as much of law and Uberty with him as the nature of things wiU bear. " In the application of this principle, however, the colonists differed widely among themselves. In the early days of New England, when the Puritan leaders had a clear field for then theories, with almost no external authority over them, common-law principles were repeatedly set aside in order to meet local requirements or carry out their own interpretation of Biblical teaching. Quaker theories had a simUar effect in Pennsyl vania. Indeed, there was no colony in which the common law was universaUy or rigidly followed. A system of law which had grown up gradually in an old country plainly could not be appUed mechanicaUy in a new community con stantly facing problems quite unfamiUar to English jurists. In the eighteenth century, this tendency to modify the increasing common law in accordance with local conditions was counter- 0f the com- acted by two important influences. During this period strong pressure was brought to bear by the British government, which was now more careful to appoint provincial judges and attorneys-general who knew something about the common law and could be counted on to apply it so far as possible. The royal veto on colonial laws and the right of appeal from provincial courts to the Privy CouncU were also used for the same purpose. Meantime, entirely different mo tives were helping to popularize the common law among the colonists. With the overthrow of the old charters, the problem of defending English liberty against abuse of the royal prerogative became more nearly hke what it had been in England. More attention was, therefore, paid to mon law. 346 ENGLISH AND AMERICAN WAYS The lawyer class. Influence of English statutes. Difficulties in adminis tration. those provisions of the common law which had proved useful for this purpose in the past. Meantime, the lawyer class, at first weak and discredited, graduaUy increased in numbers and prestige. Many lawyers, especiaUy in Pennsylvania and the South, were trained in the EngUsh Inns of Court; others came indirectly under the same influence. Those lawyers who took the popular side were soon making effective use of EngUsh law in defense of colonial rights. According to the orthodox theory, the only EngUsh law which took effect in any particular colony was the common law, so far as it was appUcable to local conditions, and such statute law, chiefly for the enforcement or devel opment of common-law principles, as had been enacted before the colony was founded. There were, however, some later English statutes, notably the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 estabUshing new safeguards against arbitrary ar rest, of which Americans were anxious to take advantage even though they were not strictly appUcable in the colonies. Some of this legislation was reproduced in acts of the various colonial assemblies, though such acts were sometimes de feated by the royal veto. Sometimes colonial judges put EngUsh statutes into effect without waiting for a specific provincial statute. In Maryland, particularly, the as sembly insisted that the provincial judges should give the people the benefits of such EngUsh statutes as seemed appUcable to local conditions. A friendly British critic declared in 1758 that the Amer icans went too far in their acceptance of the EngUsh law, much of which was adapted to a past age or to England alone. "Certainly," he said, "our American brethren might have carried with them the privUeges which make the glory and happiness of EngUshmen" without burden ing themselves unnecessarily with so much that was use less or harmful in a new society. Judges also found it EVOLUTION OF AMERICAN IDEAS 347 difficult to say what parts of the English law were applica ble to colonial conditions and should therefore take effect in any particular case. On some common-law rights, how- Accepted ever, American opinion was practically unanimous. One P1™^163, was the right of trial by jury both in civU and criminal cases. Another was the privilege of securing a writ of ha beas corpus to prevent arbitrary imprisonment. A third was the right of every subject not to be deprived of his property without some regular legal process. Thus in many aspects of American life, — in language, New government, and law, — colonial theory and practice were ideas?**" largely EngUsh. Yet this is only one side of the story. Closer study shows that Americans were after aU devel oping something quite different from the prevaUing Eng hsh type. Even when inherited forms were preserved, their real meaning was often changed. How did this come about? First of aU, there is the famiUar fact that a large pro- Desire for portion of those who went from the Old World to the New social order. did so because they were dissatisfied with the institutions — economic, poUtical, religious — which they left behind. More or less consciously, many of them tried to estabUsh the social order which they were setting up in America on new, and, as they thought, better, principles. Many poUtical experiments, of course, proved disappointing. New England Puritans and Pennsylvania Quakers had to adjust themselves more or less to the old traditions which they had tried to escape. Meantime, however, they had buUt into the foundations of American society some elements which resisted the unifying influence of imperial policies. The second, and perhaps most important, influence ^u^of makmg for differentiation grew out of the practical prob- environment. lems of colonization. Colonial promoters in England often had to estabUsh in America, not the arrangements to which they were accustomed in England or which they personally 348 ENGLISH AND AMERICAN WAYS The suffrage Weakening of class distinctions. New theory of repre sentation. preferred, but rather those which would be most attractive to settlers. When colonial assembUes began legislating about frontier conditions they often found Uttle help in ancient precedents and so developed a new common law of their own. Again, some aUowance must be made for the influence on American practices or ideals of the non- Engffsh immigrants from Scotland, Ireland, and the Con tinent, whose traditions were of quite a different sort. Finally, it must be remembered that, when EngUsh and - American ways diverged, it was not always the American that moved farthest from the older EngUsh practice. So, for instance, obsolete forms of EngUsh speech have sometimes survived longer here than in England. "Americanizing" influences may be seen in almost every phase of provincial life, either producing new insti tutions or modifying old ones. Representative government, for instance, did not work out in America quite as it did in England. In both cases, the suffrage was limited to the property-holding class, but the practical difference was very great. In an old EngUsh county, where estates were concentrated in a few hands, the limitation of suffrage to freeholders was a serious matter. In a new country, the opportunity to qualify as a freeholder was open to a much larger proportion of the population. So in spite of some class distinctions, a country in which almost any industrious white man could hope to own land tended to become dem ocratic both socially and pohticaUy. Every colony had its "gentry," but they had no such prestige as the landed aristocracy in England. The relations between a representative and his con stituents were also closer in America than in England, where a member of the House of Commons was not re quired to be a resident of the district which elected him. An EngUsh west-country constituency may stiU be rep resented by a London lawyer, or a great seaport by AMERICAN POLITICAL IDEAS 349 some country gentleman. For better or worse, Americans have come to think differently and the beginnings of the change go back to colonial times. In Massachusetts rep resentatives had to be residents of the towns from which they were elected, and a Virginia burgess had at least to hold property in the county which he represented. Else where the practice varied, but the tendency was to asso ciate representatives with their constituencies by requiring them to be either residents or property owners. So, for most Americans, the representation of the voters in a given district came to mean then choice of one of themselves to speak for them in matters of taxation and pubUc policy. The English theory, that any group of people could be "virtuaUy" represented by some outsider in whose se lection they might have had no part, naturaUy did not appeal to Americans when it was urged a Uttle later in support of parliamentary taxation for the colonies. It has already been pointed out that, while EngUsh American constitutional law was more and more emphasizing the about con- absolute authority of ParUament and getting away from ^S^^'s the idea of constitutional limitations binding even upon Parliament itself, Americans were moving in the opposite direction. From the beginning they had been accustomed to legislatures which were limited in various ways, — some times by the charters, sometimes by the necessity of con forming to particular rules of EngUsh law. Such limi tations were not merely theoretical; they were enforced by decisions of the Privy CouncU, which acted on appeals from colonial courts. Whether there were similar limita tions on ParUament itself was a question not yet clearly thought out by most Americans. Some of them, however, had more or less definite notions of the empire as a quasi- federal system with a rough boundary Une separating the legitimate authority of ParUament from that of the colonial legislatures. 35° ENGLISH AND AMERICAN WAYS Americanlocal gov ernment. Modifications of the common law. In local government, simUar transforming influences were at work, though the results varied widely from one colony to another, Virginia, for instance, keeping most closely to the EngUsh model. The New England town meeting went far beyond the EngUsh parish both in the free han dling of local business and in its power to influence Or check the poUcies of the central government. In the middle provinces, county administration was brought more fuUy under popular control. In New York the justices had to share their authority with supervisors elected by the in habitants of each township. In Pennsylvania, the voters of each county elected or nominated not only members of the assembly but also such officers as sheriff, coroner, and county commissioners. In the matter of personal and property rights also, American thought drifted from the old moorings. Even when claiming for themselves all possible benefits of the common law, they also discarded much which did not appeal to them or seemed unsuited to local needs. The New Englanders, for instance, decided that the prosperity of their settlements would be secured best by a wide dis tribution of property in land. Accordingly, when a landowner died without leaving a wUl, the law did not, as in England, give aU the real estate to the eldest son, but divided it among the chUdren, the eldest son receiving only a double portion. In the case of Winthrop v. Lechmere, decided in 1728, the Enghsh Privy CouncU set aside the Connecticut law on this subject, on the ground that it was contrary to the law of England, and if this action had been taken generaUy, New England land titles would have been thrown into confusion. Fortunately this policy was not carried out and later decisions practicaUy gave the New Englanders a free hand in this respect. Another example of more or less radical departure from EngUsh models is to be found in the penal codes of the colonies. Though harsh enough, CHURCH AND STATE 351 from a modern point of view, they were generally less so than the contemporary English practice, which stUl imposed the death penalty for various minor offenses. Something was done to simplify legal procedure and make justice less expensive for the poor man. New Englanders especially prided themselves on certain improvements, such as public registration of land titles, the use of EngUsh in aU pro ceedings, and in general making justice "easy, quick, and cheap. " In the matter of safeguards for free speech and a free Freedom of press, progress was made on both sides of the Atlantic. l e press- The poUcy of requiring books to be licensed before pub- Ucation was given up both in England and in America. In one important matter, however, American practice antici pated that of England. In the Zenger case, already de scribed, a New York jury attracted attention by asserting its right to decide whether the pubhcation was false and maUcious instead of merely accepting the judge's decision. This was in 1735. In 1784, the great Enghsh lawyer, Erskine, defended substantiaUy this doctrine in a famous Ubel suit, though it was not until 1792 that it was definitely estabUshed by act of ParUament. One feature of American society which has always American mterested foreign observers is the status of reUgion and ch°rfh and more particularly of religion in its relation to the state. state' The development of American thought on this subject was gradual and there was no generaUy accepted theory before the Revolution. Nevertheless, the tendency was certainly against state control. Even in New England and Virginia, where such control was most effective, it was clearly growing weaker. The various influences at work to bring about reUgious liberty and the separation of church and state have been noted in the history of particular colonies or groups of colonies; but the main features of the development may be recaUed briefly. 352 ENGLISH AND AMERICAN WAYS Tendencytoward religious liberty. Conditions at the close of the colonial era. Sometimes reUgious Uberty was advanced because leaders Uke Roger WUUams and WiUiam Penn thought out a defi nite theory of freedom and appUed it in the colonies which they founded or helped to found. Elsewhere, as in most of the proprietary provmces, a more or less Uberal poUcy toward reUgious dissenters was adopted because it was "good business"; land was worthless without people to work it and the promise of reUgious Uberty was likely to attract some particularly soUd and hard-working immi grants. So also the AngUcan authorities of the South found it worth while to aUow a larger reUgious Uberty to the dis senters whose settlements guarded their Indian frontiers. Sometimes the ruling element in a colony had ecclesias tical views opposed to those of the home government. In such cases dissatisfied groups could often make trouble in England. The CathoUc Lord Baltimore might have pursued a tolerant poUcy in any case; but in 1648, with an ultra- Protestant government in England, he could hardly have done anything else. Certainly the appeals of AngUcans and Quakers to the authorities in London helped to break down the rigid Puritan systems of Massachusetts and Con necticut. Practical expediency was probably more decisive than theory in the progress of religious freedom, The outcome, at any rate, is clear. Actual persecution for reUgious opinion almost disappeared. The one group which still remained under the ban was the CathoUcs, and some of the legislation against them was extremely harsh, notably in New York and Maryland, but it was probably less so in practice than on paper and the number actuaUy interfered with was comparatively smaU. Furthermore, there were several provinces with no state church at aU, including Rhode Island and aU the middle provinces except part of New York. In these colonies, with their great variety of reUgious sects, men were graduaUy accepting the now familiar American phUosophy that the state should be THE SPIRIT OF DISSENT 353 neutral in its attitude toward competing reUgious bodies. Their example also helped dissenters in those provinces which stUl clung to the state-church idea. Scarcely less significant than this drift away from church Relative establishments was the relative weakness in America of ^eaknfss of ... , , tne older the churches whose evolution was most closely associated churches. with the older society of Europe. The Church of England, as weU as the Catholics and to a lesser extent the Lu therans, cherished institutions and forms of worship which preserved the sense of continuity in the organized life of the church. So far as these institutions were transplanted to America, they carried with them something of the old soU; modes of thought and feeling which kept men more conscious than they might otherwise have been of their kinship with European civilization. Respect for authority, deference to what Edmund Burke caUed the "early received and uniformly continued sense of mankind, " — these were mental attitudes which some men, at any rate, were likely to carry over from religion into their poUtical and social phUosophy. The position of the radical Protestants — such as strength of the CongregationaUsts, Quakers, Baptists, and the minor j£| ^frf"1" German sects — was quite different. In Europe they were protesting minorities, fighting for life, with the main forces of national Ufe against them. Their pecuUar ideals were indeed born in Europe; but they found in America a more congenial soU and the European background meant much less to them. They cared Uttle for venerable Uturgies, or estabUshed orders, or divine right in kings and bishops. In America, many of these sects now had a free field for experimentation. Their pet theories were transmuted into the working phUosophy of men who shaped pubUc opinion and sometimes, as in New England and Pennsylvania, controUed the government. By 1776 there was not a single one of the old thirteen colonies in which a combination of 354 ENGLISH AND AMERICAN WAYS Effect of westward expansion. The making of an American. these groups could not claim a majority of the population. Such conditions certainly helped to make American ideals different from those prevailing in Europe, not only in reUgion but in other phases of popular phUosophy. Obviously the differentiation of Americans from Eng Ushmen went on much faster in certain regions and in certain social groups than in others. A Virginia planter, educated in religion and letters by AngUcan clergymen, cor responding with relatives and business agents in the old country, and priding himself on his broad acres, was much nearer to his EngUsh contemporaries than the heterogene ous population of the middle region, or the Puritan farmers of Massachusetts and Connecticut who had not quite for gotten the repubUcan spirit of the CromweUian era. Most American of aU in our modern sense were the newer com munities of the interior. As the seaboard settlements de veloped with age a new conservatism of their own, the pioneering spirit had found its outlet on the westward- moving frontier. Here again there was land to be had almost for the asking; capital was useful, but individual energy and courage were less handicapped in competition with inherited wealth and social status. Here also, some times for better but sometimes also for worse, men lost touch with the traditions and conventions of an older so ciety. Separated from their neighbors on the seaboard, they were stiU further removed from their cousins across the sea. FinaUy, it was in the back country that men of purely EngUsh stock found themselves most generaUy out numbered by new immigrants from Scotland, Ireland, and the Continent, with their varied reUgious and social traditions. On the eve of the Revolution an able observer, him self a recent immigrant, wrote a weU-known book, caUed Letters from an American Farmer, in which he tried to show what it was that made an American different from a Euro- THE MAKING OF AN AMERICAN 35 5 pean. What struck him particularly was the tendency of American life to break down old distinctions of class, nation ality, and religion. He noted the "pleasing uniformity of decent competence" which prevaUed here, contrasting it with a European society made up of landlords and tenants. "This fair country alone is settled by freeholders, the possessors of the soU they cultivate, members of the government they obey." Coming as a poor immigrant, the European peasant found his labor in demand and was able before long to buy land on his own account. Ownership of land and a liberal rule of naturaUzation transformed him into a self-respecting citizen and voter. Mutual tolerance also developed through contact with men of widely different conditions. "If they are peaceable subjects, and are industrious, what is it to their neighbors how and in what manner they think fit to address their prayers to the Supreme Being? " In this atmosphere of economic, poUtical, and religious freedom, the European became an American, "a new man, who acts upon new principles." For provincial America as a whole this picture was overoptimistic. It does not, for in stance, take into account the very different outlook of a conservative Puritan merchant in Boston or a typical slave- owning planter on the James. It does, however, fairly represent the new America which was everywhere beginning to assert itself against the more conservative spirit of the seaboard. BD3LIOGRAPHICAL NOTES Andrews, Colonial Period, chs. VII, IX. Becker, Beginnings General^ of the American People, ch. V. Greene, Provincial America, chs. V, XH, XIII, XVIII. Lecky, W. E. H., England in the Eighteenth Century, III, 294-324. Trevelyan, G. O., American Revolution I, 12-56, 63-69. Hart, Contemporaries, II, pts. Ill, IV, and nos. 47, 48, 52- j^cteci Turner, Frontier in American History, chs. I, III. Roosevelt, 356 ENGLISH AND AMERICAN WAYS Geographicinfluences.The frontier. Politicaltheory and practice. English law in America. ReUgion. Social ideals and practices. American culture. Winning of the West, I, ch. V. Semple, E. C, American History and Its Geographic Conditions, chs. HI, IV. St. John de Crevecoeur, H., Letters from an American Farmer (convenient Everyman edition). Channing, United States, III, 74-76, and his Town and County Government {Johns Hopkins Studies, II, no. 10). Cheyney, Euro pean Background, 313-315. Frothingham, R., Rise of the Republic, chs. I-IV. Greene, E. B., Provincial Governor, chs. VIH-X. Howard, G. E., Local Constitutional History of the United States, I. Mcllwain, C. H., High Court of Parliament, chs. IV, V. McKinley, A. E., Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies (summary in ch. XV). Merriam, C. E., American Political Theories, ch. I. Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History, I (articles by Reinsch, Sioussat, and Andrews). Chalmers, G., Opinions of Eminent Lawyers (see index under Common Law). On lawyers and their training, see Warren, C. W., History of the American Bar, pt. I; Still6, C. J., John Dickinson, ch. II; and BedweU, American Middle Templars {Am. Hist. Review, XXV, 680-689). Channing, United States, II, ch. XV. Andrews, C. M., Colonial Folkways. Earle, A. M., Home Life in Colonial Days; Colonial Dames and Good Wives; and Stage Coach and Tavern Days. Eggle- ston, E., Transit of Civilization, and his articles in Century Maga zine, 1884-1885. Fisher, S. G., Men, Women, and Manners in Colonial Times. Mereness, N. D., Travels in the Colonies (espe ciaUy Gordon and the Moravians). Cambridge History of American Literature, I, bk. I. Tyler, American Literature,!!, ch. XVHI. CHAPTER XVI THE STRUGGLE FOR THE WEST AND THE PASSING OF NEW FRANCE The great fact of American history during the first British haU of the eighteenth century is the process of expansion, "P*"3"*11- by which the British provinces preempted not only the seaboard from Nova Scotia to Georgia but also the eastern slopes of the Appalachian system. With the exception of two struggling settlements, Nova Scotia in the north and Georgia in the south, this expansion had come about through the development of older provinces rather than the organ ization of new ones. The work could not have been done, however, without the help of many thousand new immigrants, who found on these upland frontiers opportunities no longer open to them in the region occupied by the seventeenth- century pioneers. Along with this solid colonization of the "Old West," English as Turner has caUed it to distinguish it from the newer beycmdriie West beyond the mountains, there was a more adventurous AUeghemes. and picturesque kind of enterprise which broke through or passed around the mountain barrier to the "western waters" of the Mississippi vaUey. Before the end of the seventeenth century, a few daring spirits among the EngUsh colonists had ventured into the great "hinterland" to trade with the Indians in the Lake region and in the vaUeys of the Ohio and its southern tributaries. Then and for the next half century, these EngUsh hunters, trappers, and traders, though active enough to disturb their French and Spanish rivals, were stiU quite insignificant in numbers and worked at a great disadvantage, often separated from 357 358 THE STRUGGLE FOR THE WEST their bases of suppUes by several hundred mUes of wUderness. GraduaUy, however, the pioneer settlements of western Pennsylvania, Virginia, and the Carolinas were putting another face on the situation. Here were new and more convenient points of approach to the trans-AUegheny re gion, and here also were trained, in large part, the men who were to form the skirmish line of the EngUsh advance into the Mississippi vaUey. So the process of expansion already described leads naturaUy to the next and most dramatic chapter in colonial history, the decisive struggle of the English-speaking people with their two great Latin rivals for predominance in North America. The French The more formidable of these two antagonists was, of course, France, whose pioneers had been active in the trans-AUegheny country since the days of La SaUe, Mar quette, and Iberville. In the north were the Lake posts — Fort Frontenac at the outlet of Lake Ontario, Niagara, Detroit, Mackinaw, Green Bay. The western line was held by New Orleans and a few struggling settlements farther up the Mississippi, including the viUages of the Illinois country and a post on the Wabash. On the Gulf, facing the Spaniards in Florida, was the French outpost of MobUe. The white population of this vast region was stUl insig nificant. There were certainly fewer white people between the AUeghenies and the Mississippi in 1750 than in one of the smaUer EngUsh colonies. Even in this meager population many were not real home makers, but more or less tempo rary occupants — officials, traders, soldiers, and missionaries. White women were scarce and many of the younger gener ation in the French viUages were the chUdren of Indian mothers. A few farmers in the Illinois country were raising wheat and shipping flour down the river to New Orleans; but the dominating interest of this western country was the fur trade. It was the fur trade also in which the EngUsh adventurers beyond the mountains were chiefly interested. COMMERCIAL RIVALRIES 359 GraduaUy a larger issue dawned upon Englishmen and French and Frenchmen alike. From the French pomt of view, the El»B'jah, r ' points ef Ohio vaUey was an essential link between the colonies on *"*• the St. Lawrence and those on the Mississippi; the loss of that link would be a serious blow to the integrity of their North American empire. The EngUsh were equaUy sure that French settlements on the western rivers which rose on the Appalachian plateau would hem in their natural advance from the seaboard. Thus, as so often happens in history, both sides had aggressive plans for expansion; but each declared with more or less sincerity that its own aims were primarUy defensive, the securing of legitimate interests against unjust aggression. Important as this western problem was from an Ameri- The western can point of view, it is necessary to remember always that, and^worid for the rulers of the British Empire, it was only one of many P°Utics' threads in the complicated web of world politics. StUl, as in the era of the Restoration, the first object of British foreign poUcy was the advancement of sea power and the pro motion of commerce. In the first half of the seventeenth Struggle for century, the leaders in the race for commercial supremacy supremacy. were the Dutch, who had destroyed the old Portu guese monopoly of Asiatic commerce and won also a large share in tiie carrying trade, of both the European nations and their American dependencies. These achievements naturaUy excited the jealousy of the other two great mari time powers of western Europe. France and England stiU had much to learn from the Dutch; but their superi ority in population, territory, and other physical resources, if properly organized, was bound to teU in the end. To provide such organization through governmental action became, therefore, a prime object of British and French statesmanship. Trade was to be developed not merely by individual initiative, but through protective legislation, diplo macy, and even war. A commerce thus built up by the 360 THE STRUGGLE FOR THE WEST Commerceand war. The struggle in Asia, Africa, and America. Sea power. The conflict postponed. state was expected also to work for the state. Trade prop erly controUed would bring revenue to the Crown; revenue would support armies and navies; and, to close the circle of commercial imperiaUsm, armies and navies could be used in defending and promoting trade. Of course this reason ing practically carried with it the notion, unfortunately not yet dead, of international trade as a kind of warfare rather than a mutuaUy helpful exchange of services. In this kind of international competition, England and France soon set a pace with which a smaU country like the Netherlands could hardly keep up, and the Dutch graduaUy lost ground. Meantime, the conflict between the two leading powers became more intense and far-reaching. In India, EngUsh and French companies set up "facto ries," or agencies, through which they tried to control the European trade in Eastern wares. The African coast furnished ports of caU on the way to the Indies and above aU a field for strenuous competition in the slave trade. From the governmental point of view even America was primarUy worth whUe, not because it furnished territory for European settlements but because poUtical control of territory would carry with it control of certain American products: fish, fur, and naval stores from the North; tobacco, sugar, and dyestuffs from the South. FinaUy, sea power was essential to protect these distant trade routes, and this meant not only expanding navies, but naval stations at strategic points Uke Gibraltar on the Mediterranean, Louis- burg on the Canadian coast, and certain ports in the West Indies. Notwithstanding these intense rivalries, actual warfare was avoided for a quarter century after the peace of Utrecht. Both the French and British governments had been heavfiy burdened by the War of the Spanish Succession and both were made cautious by internal difficulties. France had an infant king and was troubled by endless court intrigues, SPAIN AND ENGLAND 361 whue in England the Whigs were trying to avoid foreign compUcations and keep down taxes until their new German dynasty could be domesticated. So both parties were wffl- ing to postpone the conflict, though each kept a jealous eye upon the other. Meantime, Spam stiU played an important, though sec- Position of ondary, part in the game of world politics. After a long war l^id iu in which the Spanish crown and its dependencies in three politics- continents had been fought over by the rival powers of Europe, the spoUs had been divided between the contending parties. So far as trade and colonies were concerned, England reaped the chief advantage; but a younger branch of the French Bourbon monarchy was estabUshed in Spam. Though Frenchmen and Spaniards were not always sympathetic, they were drawn together by this dynastic relation and by their common hostffity towards England, their most dan gerous rival. In the century and a half which ended with the treaty of Spanish Utrecht, Spain had accumulated a long Ust of grievances fgamst063 against the EngUsh. The freebooting expeditions of Hawkins Eneland- and Drake, the conquest of Jamaica, and finally the humUi- ating loss of Gibraltar — these were a few of the old scores which the rulers of Spain would have been glad to pay off. Even since the peace, they had much to complain of; Brit ish seamen were not content with the trading privUeges given them by the treaty and were constantly colliding with the customs officials in the Spanish colonies. On the North American mainland, the whole process of English coloni zation, especiaUy in the South, seemed nothing less than a series of encroachments on Spanish territory; and the occupation of Georgia threatened to crowd Spain altogether from the Atlantic seaboard. Spain also had its grievances against the French, who occupied the Gulf coast at New Orleans and MobUe; but these were not sufficient to pre vent the two powers from drawing together at certain 362 THE STRUGGLE FOR THE WEST The Family times for defense against a common enemy. So it came Compact. about that the Bourbon governments of France and Spain united in the FamUy Compact of 1733, which was aimed primarUy at England. Anglo- Six years later the friction between British seamen and of^7^.War the Spanish customs guards caused so much excitement in Great Britain that the peace-loving ministry of Walpole was pushed reluctantly into a new war with Spain. Even before the declaration was known in America, Admiral Ver non had attacked and captured Porto BeUo on the northern side of the Isthmus of Panama. Reenforcements were sent him at once and plans made for an extensive campaign against Spanish America. The outcome was disappointing, but there was one notable achievement worthy of the EUzabethan seamen, — the voyage of Captain Anson in the Centurion. Like Drake, Anson saUed up the Pacific coast of South America, preying upon the enemy's commerce as he went, and then crossed the Pacific Ocean. After spending several months in Chinese waters and capturing one of the great Spanish treasure ships, he returned to England in 1744. He brought back only a fraction of his original force, but he had dealt Spain a serious blow. The North American colonies also had a part in this war. The British in Georgia under Oglethorpe made an unsuccessful expedition against St. Augustine; and in 1742 the Spaniards landed a force on the Georgia coast, which was repulsed after hard fighting. The northern colonies were caUed on to furnish men and sup plies for the campaigns in Central and South America; and in New England, at least, they responded with some enthusiasm. Privateering, through its combination of busi ness with war, was especiaUy attractive to colonial capitaUsts and seamen. Spain The Spanish war was, however, soon overshadowed by France. y the conflict with France, which had already been help ing her affy so far as she could without being technicaUy WAR OF THE AUSTRIAN SUCCESSION 363 at war. The French declaration of war in 1744 was hastened by events in Europe which seemed to have little relation to the New World. The Anglo-Spanish War had hardly begun, when Frederick the Great, the ambitious young King of Prussia, seized the Austrian province of SUesia. The integrity of the Austrian dominions had been guaranteed by the Euro pean powers, including France, Great Britain, and Prussia herseff; but France had her eye on the Austrian Netherlands, and soon aUied herself with Prussia. For England, it was not merely a question of observing her treaty obUgations; her own interests were directly affected. She could not afford to have an aggressive maritime power like France estab lishing its hold on the coast provmces of the Netherlands. So the conflict both in Europe and in America was largely one of sea power. No one understood this more clearly than Frederick himself, who was not only a great soldier but a keen student of politics. He saw in this persistent antago nism of the two rival maritime powers the controUing fac tor in European poUtics, on which he could count with confidence to prevent united action in defense of Austria. In this European War of the Austrian Succession, the com- War of the bination to which England belonged met with serious reverses, succession. Prussia kept its grip on SUesia and the French armies ad vanced into the Netherlands. In 1745 the uprising of the Jacobites under the "Young Pretender" gave the British government some anxious moments, though the rebels were defeated in the battle of CuUoden. At sea, the British grad ually established their superiority over the French; but they failed to use this advantage for large enterprises in Amer ica. There both sides made extravagant claims, but neither was quite ready to force the issue. The outstanding event of the war in America was the The war in New England expedition against Louisburg, the fortress Louisburg. on Cape Breton Island, buUt by the French after the surrender of Acadia. Louisburg was the most important French post 364 THE STRUGGLE FOR THE WEST on the seaboard, both for the defense of the St. Lawrence gateway, and for more aggressive purposes. Under its shel ter, the French fisheries developed so fast as to arouse the anxiety of the New Englanders, and connections were kept up with the Acadians in Nova Scotia which were quite inconsistent with their new EngUsh aUegiance. In time of war,. Louisburg became more formidable stiU. From its safe harbor, French privateers saUed out from time to time with disastrous results to New England traders and fishermen. It was also a convenient base for miUtary and naval expeditions against the neighboring colonies. To get rid of this "thorn in the flesh," Governor William Shirley of Massachusetts proposed to the House of Representatives in secret session a plan for the capture of the fortress. The assembly hesitated but the plan was finaUy approved. With some difficulty, Shirley secured the cooperation of Commo dore Warren of the British navy with a few ships from the West Indies. New England, however, made the largest con tribution, including the commander of the expedition, WiUiam PeppereU of Kittery, Maine. PeppereU was a man of varied experience and good sense, but, like most of his associates, without much mffitary experience. From the point of view of a military expert, this amateur enterprise was quite reckless, and it would doubtless have faUed if the French commander and his men had done their duty. ActuaUy, however, Yankee energy, aided by sheer good luck, won in spite of aU the rules, and on June 17, 1745, Louis burg was taken. Indecisive Inspired by this achievement, Shirley now urged upon the British ministry a much more ambitious project for the complete conquest of Canada. Unfortunately his corre spondent, Newcastle, was too much occupied with other matters and lacked the imagination which a few years later made Pitt the great imperial statesman of his time. So the last years of "King George's War" passed with no events of operations. DIPLOMATIC PROBLEMS 365 real importance. The French attempted to avenge the blow at Louisburg, but their fleets were baffled, first by storms and later by the British navy. In the Mohawk vaUey the French agent, Joncaire, and the British agent, WiUiam Johnson, were playing a close game for the support of the Iroquois. On the New England frontiers there was the old dismal story of French and Indian raids, inflicting much distress but producing little permanent effect. By 1748 nearly everybody was tired of the war. Fred- Treaty of erick the Great was content with peace and Silesia, while p^e? ml' France and England had fought so evenly that both were ready to go back to the conditions before the war. This meant the return of Louisburg, to the great disgust of the New England people, who saw aU their efforts go for nothing. A serious effort was made by the British government to keep it, but France was equally determined and had, besides, a strong position in the Netherlands which she would not give up without compensation. For British sea power, the exclusion of France from the Netherlands seemed even more important than the keeping of Louisburg; inciden taUy also, the British East India Company recovered Ma dras, which had been taken by the French. So far as America was concerned, the war settled nothing. The diplomatists next took up the task of trymg to Diplomacy, settle the conflicting claims of the two nations in the West, r^b"ai and on the Acadian frontier. Commissioners appointed °£ the maPs- for this purpose met in Paris, among them Governor Shir ley, who could give first-hand information on American conditions and the American point of view. There was another battle of the maps; extravagant claims were made on both sides, and the spirit of compromise was utterly lacking. So the negotiations came to nothing. Colonial officials on both sides urged thoroughgoing measures, but their home governments were more conservative and the decisive struggle approached without effective preparation RIVALRY ON THE SEABOARD 367 on either side. When war came, the opening scenes were overseas in India and America. The points of hostile contact, where the territorial claims Points of and trading interests of the French and EngUsh met, were contact. many. Four were especiaUy important on the North Ameri- Acadia and can continent. The first was on the seaboard, where the EngUsh at Halifax were watching the French at Louisburg. That Acadia had been duly ceded by Louis XIV in the treaty of Utrecht was one of the few EngUsh claims which France was wUling to concede, but what was Acadia? To England it meant not only the present peninsular province of Nova Scotia, but also much additional territory stretch ing northward and westward to the St. Lawrence basin. The French, on the contrary, proposed to confine Acadia to a smaU tract on the peninsula. Both sides took steps to enforce their theories. The British began in earnest the long-neglected colonization of Nova Scotia, and by 1752 the new town of Halifax had about four thousand people, though this British element was stiU outnumbered by the Acadian French. Meantime, the French not only kept up their religious and political connections with the Acadians, but estabUshed the fort of Beausejour on the narrow neck of the peninsula. The British, equally de termined, fortified Beaubassin, only a few mUes away, mak ing at the same time new efforts to secure the aUegiance of the Acadian farmers. A second debatable region lay along the waterway TheHudson- which connects New York with Montreal. The southern waterway!106 part of that line, formed by the Hudson River, was defi nitely British for a short distance above Albany. Its north ern section, the Richelieu River, was quite as definitely French. Between these two sections was the disputed area, the portage from the Hudson to Lake George and the region about that lake and Lake Champlain. The French had an outpost at Crown Point on Lake Champlain; 368 THE STRUGGLE FOR THE WEST The Great Lakes. Os wego and Niagara. The Ohio valley. but the New Yorkers were less enterprising and a fort built at Saratoga was abandoned in 1747. The French advance on this line was a serious matter for the New Englanders, whose pioneer settlements on the upper Connecticut could easUy be reached by raiding expeditions from Crown Point. The third field of international rivalry, the Great Lakes basin, with its rich fur trade, was approached by the two competing nations on converging lines. The French had taken the lead by way of the St. Lawrence and Ottawa rivers; their strategic points were Fort Frontenac, Niagara, and Detroit. The English moved somewhat later by the Mohawk vaUey to Oswego on Lake Ontario; but in the second quarter of the eighteenth century they gained dis tinctly on the French. The treaty of Utrecht recognized British suzerainty over the Iroquois, which was exploited for more than it was worth, as a basis for British claims to the West. The post at Oswego soon did a more thriving business than that at Niagara. Yet the French always regarded the Oswego traders as trespassers and stiU hoped to bring the Iroquois over to their side. The youngest, but soon to become the most urgent, of these frontier issues turned on the control of the Ohio vaUey. A century and more of western enterprise gave the French a fair claim by right of occupation to the upper Lakes and the line of the Mississippi; but, when peace was made in 1748, the only safe communication between Canada and Louisiana was the long and difficult northern route. The shorter and easier thoroughfare of the Ohio was blocked at its eastern end; for the portages connecting that river with the lower Lake region and the St. Lawrence were dom inated by the Iroquois. This difficulty became more se rious as new EngUsh pioneers pressed forward into the Mississippi basin. In Pennsylvania and Virginia especiaUy, men of wealth and influence were planning systematicaUy for the exploitation of western trade and western lands. THE FORKS OF THE OHIO 369 The forks of the Ohio, where the Monongahela from the south and the AUegheny from the north join their forces, lay within the charter lines of Pennsylvania; but the Vir ginians, remembering the "west and northwest" clause in their charter of 1609, put in a counterclaim. Though these dissensions hurt the British cause, enough was being done on that side to cause the French serious anxiety. The Canadian governor at this critical moment was French expe- the Marquis de la GaUssoniere, a distinguished naval officer, Ohio? t0 the but also a statesman, clear-sighted and capable of large views. WhUe the diplomatists were discussing documents in Paris, GaUssoniere was doing what he could to strengthen the French case. It was by his orders that Celoron de BienvUle (or BlainvUle) made a celebrated journey from Lake Erie to the AUegheny River, then down the AUegheny and Ohio to the Miami, then up the Miami and down the Maumee to Lake Erie again. The lead plates which he left at various points in this long circuit, setting forth the French title to the vaUey, hardly affected the course of history; but the information which he brought back was discourag ing and called for speedy action. Everywhere Celoron found EngUsh traders or evidences of their activity and influence among the Indians; but his force was too weak for anything more than a protest. Meantime new forward moves were being made by the The Ohio British. In 1749 the Ohio Company, a group of influential ComPany- Virginians, obtained from the King a grant of half a million acres on the Ohio, where they were to plant a colony. The next year they sent out a seasoned pioneer, Christopher Gist, who was able to get the cooperation of George Cro- ghan, the ablest of the Pennsylvania traders. On the Ohio and the Miami these agents were weU received. EspeciaUy encouraging was the development about PickawUlany, on the Miami, where the great chief of the Miami tribe, a firm friend of the British, ruled over a population of five 37° THE STRUGGLE FOR THE WEST New French forts. Instructionsto colonial governors. thousand Indians. Here the British had a fort, the cen ter of a rapidly growing trade. Before long, however, the tide began to run against them, and in the next five years disaster foUowed disaster, largely because mutual jealous ies and a generaUy provincial outlook prevented the British colonies from acting effectively together. In 1752 the French dealt a severe blow at British in fluence when a party of western Indians, led by a French trader from Wisconsin, broke up the post at PickawUlany. The next year the new French governor, Duquesne, took up the task of securing the northern approach to the Ohio from Lake Erie. Forts were buUt at Presque Isle, now Erie, Pennsylvania, and on French Creek, a tributary of the AUegheny. Here the work was interrupted by disease and the approach of winter, just as the EngUsh began to wake up to the new danger. Late in the summer of 1753, Lord Holdernesse, the secretary of state speciaUy responsible for the colonies, sent a circular to the colonial governors warning them of French encroachments. They were not to take the offen sive, but if the enemy invaded territory "within the un doubted limits" of the British dominions, they must "re- pell force by force. " This continued to be the official theory of the British government during the next two years. The French position was essentiaUy the same in principle, but the "undoubted limits" asserted by one nation were quite as confidently denied by the other. Of the governors to whom this message came, the most alert and aggressive were WiUiam Shirley in Massachusetts, Horatio Sharpe in Maryland, and Robert Dinwiddie in Virginia. Dinwiddie was a Scotchman, ardently patriotic, with plenty of fight ing spirit, though not always a skUlful politician. The lack of enterprise displayed by the Pennsylvania government gave Dinwiddie his opportunity, and he determined on a mission to warn the French out of the Ohio country. WASHINGTON ON THE OHIO 371 The agent selected for this difficult task was George Washing- Washington, then a young man of twenty-one. Though to^e"^^ his family was connected with the Virginia gentry, he was already famUiar with the hardships of the wUderness, and accustomed to dealing with the Indians. He was also associated with the group of men who had organized the Ohio Company and were interested in the occupation of western lands. In the late autumn of 1753, Washington set out on his long journey. At the trading post of WiUs Creek on the Potomac he was joined by Christopher Gist, with whom he pushed on to the forks of the Ohio. After con ferences on the way with the Indians and with the French agent, Joncaire, he deUvered his message to the commandant at Fort Le Boeuf , only to be answered by a flat defiance. Diplomacy had faUed, and prompt action was necessary Fort if the British were to keep a foothold in the Ohio vaUey. French and Preparations were, therefore, made for a British fort at j^!^ War the forks; but the smaU detachment sent to hold the po sition had to give way before a superior French force, which proceeded to estabUsh its own post of Fort Duquesne. The main body of the Virginians, under Washington, moved forward to recover the lost ground and on the way fell in with a French reconnoitering party. A skirmish foUowed in which the French commander was kiUed, but before long Washington's party was attacked and defeated by a stronger detachment from Fort Duquesne. For the time being, the British had to withdraw from the disputed region. By October, 1754, the news of this frontier skirmish and British its results had reached the British government. The New- i7S4. castle ministry, representing the old Whig traditions, was disposed to uphold British claims at the various points in dispute, but had strong reasons for not beginning a Euro pean war. George II had territory in Hanover which lay between two hostile neighbors, France and Prussia, and 372 THE STRUGGLE FOR THE WEST The French plan. Britishreverses in 1755. there was also danger that if Great Britain appeared to be the aggressor, Spain might be drawn into the fight on the French side. The British game, therefore, was to treat the fighting in America as a local affair, which might stiU be settled without actual war between the two sovereign governments. If, however, war could not be averted, then, if possible, the odium of beginning it must be thrown on the French. Meantime, the American representatives of the British Crown must be supported by miUtary force against aUeged encroachments, and a strong force of regular soldiers was, therefore, sent to America under the command of General Braddock. The lost ground on the Ohio was to be recovered by the capture of Fort Duquesne and in the Lake region there was to be an attack on Niagara. On the Nova Scotia border, the French were to be driven from Fort Beausejour and the King's rebeUious Acadian subjects re duced to submission. The danger of incursions from the north was to be guarded against by the seizure of Crown Point. Unfortunately for this program, the French government felt itself equaUy entitled to use mUitary force in support of its claims and prepared a counter expedition of regular troops. To permit this reenforcement of the French in America was to neutralize the whole British plan of opera tions. Therefore, in spite of the nominal peace between the two nations, the British fleet under Boscawen was ordered to intercept the French transports on their way across the Atlantic. This plan miscarried, however, and the main French fleet reached Canada safely. AU the Brit ish commander could do was to engage and defeat a few detached vessels. The faUure of this naval campaign opened a year of almost continuous defeat for the British arms in America. Braddock met the colonial governors in conference and worked out the detaUs of the general plan agreed upon in defeat. BRADDOCK'S DEFEAT 373 England. The one entirely successful operation was the capture of Beausejour, foUowed by the tragic removal of the so-caUed "neutral French" from Acadia, where, with aU their virtues, they were a constant menace to the British colonists. On the Hudson-Champlain line, the Indian agent William Johnson, and the New England colonel Phineas Lyman, commanded the English forces, which es tablished new posts at Fort Edward on the Hudson and Fort William Henry on Lake George. In the battle of Lake George, the British colonials repulsed the French attack, but faUed to follow up their victory. The French stiU held Crown Point and their general position on this front was not seriously weakened. The most disastrous and humiUating event of the year Braddock'! was the defeat of Braddock's expedition against Fort Du quesne. Matters went badly from the beginning. Braddock was a brave man, but like many other British officers he did not know how to bring out the hearty cooperation of his American associates, who were doubtless more or less at fault themselves. The Pennsylvania government espe ciaUy tried his patience, though Franklin was able to give substantial help. At last the preparations were completed and the long march through the mountains and forests began. On July 9, as the expedition was nearing Fort Duquesne, it was suddenly attacked by a force of French and Indians. The British officers fought bravely, but Brad dock refused to modify his tactics to meet the requirements of Indian fighting in the woods. He himself was mortaUy wounded and his regulars were badly demoralized. Wash ington, who served on Braddock's staff, did good service with the Virginia provincials during and after the battle; but the defeat was overwhelming. The last reverse of this unlucky year was the abandonment of the expedition against Niagara, undertaken in person by Shirley, who succeeded Braddock as commander in chief of the American forces. 374 THE STRUGGLE FOR THE WEST Loss of British prestige in the West. The war in Europe. Sea power in the Seven Years' War. FoUowing upon Braddock's defeat in the Ohio vaUey, this faUure on the Lakes meant an almost complete coUapse of British influence in the West. The whole frontier was now attacked by the most appalling border warfare, and the line of British occupation, which had been advancing westward before the war, was forced suddenly back. AU these operations took place before either party had definitely declared war; but the pretense of peace could not be kept up much longer. Great Britain postponed formal action untU the French attacked the British post on the island of Minorca in the Mediterranean, and then put forward this operation as the technical ground for a declaration of war. This technicaUty probably helped to keep Spain neutral for a time and so postponed a dangerous combination of the French and Spanish fleets. Meantime, the so-caUed "diplomatic revolution" had taken place in Europe with momentous consequences for America as weU. The Austrian government, abandoning its traditional poUcy of working with England to preserve the balance of power against France, entered a new combination with its old enemy, France, and Russia, in order to check the rising power of Prussia. The natural result was to put England, with Hanover, in the opposite camp. An aUiance was made between Great Britain and Prussia which proved to be one of the essential factors determining the outcome of the American conflict. So the Seven Years' War began, more distinctly a world war than any before in human history. For England the great stake in this war was her sea power and the interests which sea power was intended to protect, her commerce and her colonies. For France, also, these were vital issues, but she was deeply concerned with continental politics, and the new affiance with Austria in volved her much further than her real interests required. Thus France was heavUy burdened by expensive mUitary operations in Germany and consequently less able to pro- SEVEN YEARS' WAR; OPPOSING FORCES 375 vide for her navy and the defense of her overseas interests. At the beginning of the war, the difference between the two navies was not so great; but it was steadUy increased, and in the critical years of the conflict British domination of the ocean routes to America was decisive. AU this, however, could not have been known beforehand and when the war broke out numerous comphcating factors made the outcome far from certain. In America the British had one immense advantage in Opposing a colonial population perhaps fifteen times larger than their America. opponents. Equally evident was the superiority of the Jjjjjjjj^ British colonists in wealth, in agriculture, in commerce, and in a generally self-reliant economic life. In the long run, the same self-reliant, independent spirit in their poU tics would doubtless also have counted in their favor. Suc cess in international conflict does not, however, depend on number and wealth alone, but often quite as much on the inteUigence and efficiency with which these resources are organized. In this respect the British colonies often feU Weakness of short of their rivals. French authority in North America organization. was largely concentrated at Quebec; and, though the Cana dian governor had troubles of his own, he was not depend ent for men or money on popular assemblies, which could give or refuse as they saw fit and on their own terms. The British authorities, on the contrary, had to deal with a dozen different governors and as many different assembUes, with quite uncertain and uneven results. In this final struggle with France, the New Englanders did fairly weU because they appreciated their direct interest in the out come and also because their governors, first Shirley and then Pownall, knew how to work with high-spirited popular assembUes. Provinces less directly affected at any given time were likely to hold back or use some time of special danger to secure poUtical concessions from their governors. In Pennsylvania Quaker theories of nonresistance were 376 THE STRUGGLE FOR THE WEST Plans for intercolonial union. The Albany Plan. embarrassing until the Quakers decided to withdraw tem porarily from the assembly and leave the responsibility to men who had no scruples about war. The need of some intercolonial organization for the management of Indian relations and military affairs was realized by far-sighted men on both sides of the water, but it was hard to agree on concrete propositions. Royal offi cials were usuaUy most interested in the centralization of mUitary power, with a governor-general commanding the militia of aU the colonies. The funds needed for miUtary purposes might then be raised by an imperial assessment on aU the provinces, perhaps taking the form of taxation by ParUament. Even so popular a governor as Shirley favored such a parUamentary tax, because it seemed the only way of distributing the burden fairly on aU the colo nies, instead of leaving a few to carry more than their fair share. On the other hand, Franklin saw Uttle chance of an effective organization unless the Americans were given a hand in it, and therefore favored a conference of repre sentative men from the various colonies to form a volun tary union. The most notable effort to realize Franklin's ideal of cooperation was made by the Albany Congress of 1754, which was caUed by order of the home government for the purpose of strengthening the EngUsh hold upon the Indians, more particularly the Iroquois. Seven colonies sent com missioners to the congress, and FrankUn was one of the active members. The plan finaUy agreed upon by the con gress included a president-general appointed by the King, and a councU consisting of representatives chosen by the colonial assembUes. This federal councU was to provide for the common defense, control Indian relations, and levy taxes for these purposes, subject always to the veto of the president-general. It was a statesmanlike plan, too much so for the poUticians on either side of the Atlantic. Royal PROBLEMS OF ORGANIZATION 377 officials preferred a union of a less popular sort and the colonial assemblies were jealous of their independence. Few Americans were capable of rising, as Franklin did, to a statesmanship at once imperial and Uberal. So the plan was given up and the war had to be fought, in the main, with the old machinery, though something was done to secure more unified treatment of Indian affairs by the appointment of two general superintendents, one in the North and another in the South. The former post was given to Sir WiUiam Johnson, the most successful of the British agents among the Iroquois. British management of the war suffered not only from British poor cooperation, but also at first from poor leadership. blunders- The British officers sent to America were often ignorant of colonial conditions and points of view. Quite legitimate demands for quarters and suppUes were often presented so tactlessly as to cause unnecessary irritation. Rules of military precedence also made trouble and provincial offi cers complained that their rank was not properly recog nized. Washington, for instance, colonel in the Virginia mUitia and already an outstanding figure among the Ameri can defenders of the western frontier, ranked no higher than a simple captain of regulars. Doubtless most militia officers were poorly trained, but the faUure of routine officials to discriminate in such matters had a depressing effect on some of the very men whose larger vision and true patriotism especiaUy fitted them for leadership among their more pro vincial neighbors. Canada escaped some of these problems but not all French of them. The center of power at Quebec was undoubtedly well placed for defense even against great superiority in numbers; and in the West the French had more than re covered their old prestige among the Indians. Before the war ended, however, it became clear that the autocratic administration of New France had serious defects of its 378 THE PASSING OF NEW FRANCE The Canadian government. Montcalm. The outcome uncertain. The French and British governments. own. Of the three important offices in the Canadian gov ernment — those of the governor, the intendant, and the general in command of the royal forces — two were in bad hands. The governor, VaudreuU, was a Canadian by birth, with some experience as governor of Louisiana; but he lacked force, was easUy used by corrupt associates, and in the supreme crisis of his career aUowed petty personal views to interfere with his devotion to the public service. A more positive and dangerous personaUty was Bigot, the intend ant, who used his position as the head of the financial administration to enrich himself and his accomplices with disastrous consequences for his country. In sharp con trast to VaudreuU and Bigot stands the fine figure of the commanding general, the Marquis of Montcalm, who was not only a brave soldier but a gentleman and a real student of mUitary science. The corrupt administration with which he had to work fiUed him with disgust, though he could do little to improve it. His position was especiaUy awkward because in the last resort he was subject to the orders of the governor, who also kept the direct command of the Canadian mUitia. New France was also troubled by the same jealousy between provincial and regular officers which appeared on the British side. So far as American conditions were concerned they did not point clearly towards a decisive victory for either side. It was scarcely conceivable that the French should actuaUy conquer the rich and populous British colonies; but it was doubtful whether the latter could cooperate sufficiently to break down the strong French defensive or even to secure, in the near future, the control of the great interior vaUeys. Evidently the final outcome would depend largely upon the relative strength of the two home countries. The French monarchy under Louis XV was stUl formida ble, though it had lost something of its efficiency. The King was weak and there was no dominating personaUty, Uke EUROPEAN CONDITIONS 379 Richeheu, among the ministers. The King's mistress, Madame de Pompadour, had great political influence, which she often used to advance incompetent favorites, and she was partly responsible for the disastrous diplomacy of the war. There were many able and patriotic men in the French service; but first-rate national leadership was certainly lack ing. The British were not much better off at first. Then- German King, George II, was a soldier himself and was deeply interested in foreign politics; but the real power was exercised by the ministry, representing the majority in the House of Commons, which in turn was largely controUed by a group of influential Whig famUies. Newcastle, the prime minister, and other leaders of this inner group were fairly skillful poUticians, but they were too much occupied with distributing patronage to give proper attention to larger problems. Here, as in France, favoritism rather than merit too often determined important appointments in the army and navy as weU as in the civU service. Thus both governments began without competent leadership, and at first England made a poorer showing than France. In the Mediterranean, the French scored a decided tri- Events of umph by the capture of Minorca. In America, also, the I7S ' year 1756 went badly for the English. Under Montcalm's leadership, the French took the offensive and captured Oswego, which in spite of its importance for the western trade was not prepared for a serious attack. The new Brit ish commander, Lord Loudoun, was clumsy in dealing with the provincial governments, whose cooperation was essen tial to his success, and the British fleet, though superior in power, was not sufficiently so to cut French communi cations with the colonies or cope with the commerce- destroying of enemy privateers. The one big personaUty on the English side of the war at first was not an Englishman at aU, but Frederick of Prussia, who was making a 380 .THE PASSING OF NEW FRANCE 1-gaUant fight against the French and their aUies on the Continent. William By the autumn of 1756 most inteUigent Englishmen realized that a new leadership was needed. The most effec tive critic of the existing political machine was William Pitt, long a conspicuous member of the House of Commons but as yet without a cabinet appointment. Impatient of mere partisanship and keenly interested in the larger prob lems of the empire, Pitt had the kind of self-confidence that inspires confidence in others. Above all he knew how to inspire the loyalty of the EngUsh middle class, as yet imperfectly represented in the House of Commons. A great national crisis now gave him his first opportunity for con structive statesmanship. The Newcastle ministry was forced to resign and a new one was formed with Pitt as its real, though not its nominal, head. Pitt soon found, however, that the old leaders were stUl formidable, and a few months later he was forced to retire. Fortunately for the country Pitt and his opponents now saw the necessity of coopera tion, and so the two elements presently came together in a powerful combination which lasted four years — long enough to decide the main issues of the war. During this period, from 1757 to 1761, Newcastle looked after "prac tical poUtics" and Pitt kept himself comparatively free for vital issues of imperial statesmanship. As secretary of state he was primarily responsible for the colonies and for international diplomacy; but he also kept his hand on the mUitary and naval services, thus helping to insure effective cooperation between them. In both the fighting services, Pitt had able technical advisers who carried out his plans loyaUy; but the "grand strategy" of the war was largely his own. Development When Pitt took the helm the outlook was not encour- strategy. aging. The navy could not prevent the French fleets from getting across the Atlantic in sufficient force to block the William Pitt PITT'S STRATEGY 381 British operations in America, including a proposed attack on Louisburg. In 1757 Montcalm once more took the offensive, this time on the line of Lake Champlain and Lake George, where he captured the British post of Fort William Henry. During the next few months, however, Pitt worked out his strategy for the coming year, in which the American campaigns took the first place. To keep France busy in Europe, Frederick the Great was supported by British subsidies, with some Hanoverian troops; and some expeditions were sent against the French coast. Mean time, England's main strength was free for decisive opera tions overseas. Pitt had now got beyond the boundary disputes with which the war began and was planning for the conquest of New France. These were great designs, and Pitt's next task was to New ap- find men capable of carrying them out. Incompetent offi- ha"^ cers had to be set aside and younger men who had shown and navy- abiUty were brought to the front. "Politics" stiU made trouble and Pitt was not infallible; but there was soon a decided toning up in the mffitary service. The clumsy and ineffective General Loudoun was recalled, and though Aber- crombie, the new general in chief, was Uttle if any better, two of the junior officers soon justified Pitt's confidence. Jeffrey Amherst was a soUd, though not brUliant, officer just transferred from Germany to the American service, and Brigadier-General James Wolfe, though stiU a young Wolfe, man in the early thirties, was a thorough student of mUitary science. These two men were chosen for the important task of taking Louisburg from the French. The cooperating naval force was commanded by Admiral Boscawen, one of the ablest officers of his day. The main responsibility for this year's American cam- Pitt's appeal paigns fell on the navy and the British regulars; but Pitt colonies. also understood the importance of colonial cooperation. In December, 1757, he sent a spirited circular to the colonial 382 THE PASSING OF NEW FRANCE The victories of 1758. Louisburg. FortFrontenac. Fort Duquesne. governors which helps us to understand his unique success in winning American confidence and good wUl. He began with a stirring appeal for help in "carrying war into the heart of the enemy's possessions." The King, he said, would not limit the zeal of any province by fixing the exact quota of troops, but aU were urged to do their utmost for the common cause. Provincial mUitary officers were to receive more favorable ranking than before; arms and provisions were to be paid for from the imperial treasury; and ParUament was to be asked to compensate the colo nial governments for war expenses. Most of the colonial assembUes responded loyaUy and the prospect soon grew brighter. In the summer of 1758, the army and navy under Am herst, Wolfe, and Boscawen brought the siege of Louisburg to a successful close. Wolfe was now eager to go on with Pitt's more ambitious project for the taking of Quebec; but he was overruled, partly because of the lateness of the season, and partly because of bad news from the Lake Champlain region, where Abercrombie had been repulsed in a badly managed attack on Ticonderoga. The casual ties were serious, including Lord Howe, Abercrombie's sec ond in command, who was not only an able officer but unusuaUy successful in winning the confidence of the pro vincial mUitia. This reverse at the center was offset by notable victories in the West. First came the capture of Fort Frontenac by a force composed mainly of pro vincials under the command of a New England officer, Lieutenant-Colonel Bradstreet. The faU of Fort Frontenac carried with it the French vessels on Lake Ontario and broke the main line of communication between Canada and the western posts. The final event of the year was the taking of Fort Duquesne by General Forbes, another of Pitt's fortunate appointments, after a painful march in late autumn through the forests of western Pennsylvania. THE SDZGE OF QUEBEC 383 The French, discouraged by the faU of Fort Frontenac, did not wait for Forbes's arrival. The British commander, who had been seriously handicapped by ihness during the campaign, died soon after; but before the end came, he reported to the great war minister in England that he had given the captured fort the new name of Pittsburgh, "as I hope it was in some measure the being actuated by your spirits that now makes us masters of the place." Thus in a single year the American situation had com- The outlook pletely changed. Pitt and his advisers now looked forward in I7S9' to the crowning enterprise — the seizure of Quebec and the conquest of Canada. By this time, British naval superi ority was much more evident than in the early years of the war; though a few French ships managed to slip across to the St. Lawrence, they were not strong enough to interrupt the British transport service or relieve the besieged garrison of Quebec. The general strategy adopted for the new cam paign against Canada was substantiaUy the old plan of a The plan of double attack, one by way of the ocean and the lower St. campaign- Lawrence and the other by land from the Hudson valley. The latter movement, with the general command of the land forces, was entrusted to Amherst. The attack on Quebec was led by Admiral Saunders Capture of and General Woffe, both admirably fitted for the task in wolfiTand hand. First came the difficult operation of getting the MontcaIm' fleet safely up the St. Lawrence. This was accomphshed by the end of June, when the expedition came to anchor off Quebec. Then followed two months of hard and anxious work with the outcome quite uncertain untU the very end. It was Montcalm's policy to take full advantage of his strong defensive position at Quebec by avoiding a decisive encounter with the British on anything Uke equal terms. He did not have to defeat Wolfe's army; for if he could only hold his ground until winter, the invaders would have to give up the attack. It was Wolfe's game, on the contrary, 384 THE PASSING OF NEW FRANCE A year of victories. The con quest of Canada completed. to tempt Montcalm into taking the offensive. One plan after another faUed, however; for the "wary old fellow," as Wolfe caUed his opponent, steadUy refused to take chances. So, as the summer passed and the first week of September, it began to look as if Montcalm would win.| Woffe was handicapped by his own iUness and seemed for a time to have lost the confidence of his subordi nates; but he finaUy decided to take a desperate chance. In the dark morning hours of September 13, 1759, he landed his troops on the northern shore of the river above Quebec, scaled the difficult cliffs and won a position on the Plains of Abraham, which so commanded the city that Montcalm was at last forced to a decisive engagement. Wolfe fell leading his victorious forces, and Montcalm soon after. The young EngUsh general was not quite thirty- three years old, but he had Uved long enough to associate his name forever with the final predominance, on this conti nent, of EngUsh-speaking people. The taking of Quebec was the chief but not the only important result of the year's work in America. In the center, Amherst advanced far enough to occupy the aban doned French positions at Ticonderoga and Crown Point; but the proposed advance on Montreal was postponed. On the Great Lakes, the British captured the French post of Niagara. Another substantial achievement was the capture of Guadeloupe in the West Indies. It was a great year for Pitt, full of anxieties, — as when England's ally, Frederick the Great, was almost overwhelmed by the Russians and Austrians, — yet finaUy crowned with victory almost everywhere. The fall of Quebec was not completely decisive. Gov ernor VaudreuU still held Montreal, and in the early months of 1760 the French came dangerously near recovering Que bec. A few months later, however, Amherst's carefuUy prepared and weU-executed plans resulted in the taking of PEACE NEGOTIATIONS 385 Montreal and the surrender of Canada to the British forces. So far as North America was concerned, the primary ob ject of the war had been won; but Pitt was not satisfied. In the West Indies, Guadeloupe was already taken and he was planning expeditions against the other French islands. There was also talk of expeditions against New Orleans and MobUe. Above all, Pitt hoped to weaken the national power of France to the point where she would accept a "dictated peace." Now, however, a new danger appeared above the hori- Spain and zon. Spain, which had so far been kept neutral, was finally compact1'7 led by fear of English domination into a new FamUy Com pact with France. Convinced that this treaty of 1761 would bring Spain into the war, Pitt proposed to antic ipate the danger by attacking the Spanish treasure fleet from America. His colleagues, who had so far accepted his lead ership, — not to say dictation, — now refused to follow him. Meantime the new King, George III, and his favorite new minister, Lord Bute, were working for peace. Thus blocked on what he considered a vital matter, Pitt resigned. "I Pitt resigns. wUl be responsible," he declared, "for nothing that I do not direct." Spain did come in as Pitt predicted, but too late to New British save her aUy from defeat. West and east, England kept her supremacy on the sea. In 1762, Martinique was taken from the French and Cuba from the Spaniards. In the Far East, there was another notable victory when the British captured Manila. Notwithstanding these victories, Pitt's successors would not stand for his extreme terms, and peace negotiations were pushed forward at Paris. On the British Peace side there was a long and interesting debate on the desira- bUity of keeping Canada after all. It was said by some writers to be a barren and unprofitable country, whose occupation by the French would serve to remind the Brit ish colonies of their need for protection by the mother coun- 386 THE PASSING OF NEW FRANCE try. From this point of view, the sugar island of Guade loupe seemed a more valuable acquisition. Others, including Benjamin Franklin, described in glowing colors the pro spective development of the continental colonies, giving new strength to the empire and an expanding market for British manufacture. IncidentaUy also, the owners of sugar plan tations in the British islands were not eager for new com- The treaty petitors in the empire. So in the final treaty of 176? of Paris. %. j , 1 at .- • ¦ j r< j Guadeloupe and Martinique were given up and Canada was held. To Spain the British restored ManUa, and also Cuba; but for this they received the cession of Florida, and thus North America became British from the Atlantic to the Mississippi, with the exception of New Orleans, which, with aU of Louisiana west of the Mississippi, went to Spain as an offset for the loss of Florida. AU that remained of the great French dominion in North America was a pair of Uttle islands, St. Pierre and Miquelon, with some privi leges for French fishermen on the coast of Newfoundland. Results to With these conquests in America and the estabhshment thefcSom^ at ^ same tune °* British predominance in India, England for the first time became the unquestioned leader among the maritime and colonial powers of the world. To the people of the British continental colonies, the Paris treaty of 1763 meant the removal of a constant menace to their peaceful development and the breaking of the barriers which checked their westward expansion. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES General Bolton and Marshall, North America, ch. XX. Channing, references. United States> n> cns. XVIII, XIX. Lucas, Historical Geog raphy of the British Empire, Canada, pt. I, chs. VII- XI. Thwaites, France in America, chs. V-XVIII. Winsor, America, V, chs. I, VII, VIII. Wrong, G. M., Conquest of New France, chs. IV-XI. Selected Hart, Contemporaries, II, pt. V. Macdonald, Select Charters.. sources. nos. 51. 52, 54- BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 387 Abbott, W. C, Expansion of Europe, II, chs. XXX, XXXII. Background Andrews, Anglo-French Rivalry, 1700-1750 {Am. Hist. Review, ^^ XX, S39-SS6, 761-780). Cambridge Modern History, VI, chs. V, VI, XIII. Mahan, Influence of Sea Power, 1660-1783, chs. VI- VTII. McKinnon, J., French Monarchy, chs. XIX-XXII. Robert son, England under the Hanoverians, chs. II, III. Casgrain, H. R., Wolfe and Montcalm (French-Canadian The last writer). Corbett, J., England in the Seven Years' War. Park- Frencb war" man, F., Montcalm and Wolfe. Wood, W., The Fight for Canada. Doughty, A. G., and Parmelee, G. W., Siege of Quebec (leading authority but too detaUed for most readers). Hertz, G. B., Old Colonial System, chs. I, II, Biographies of Pitt's Pitt by W.D.Green, von RuviUe, and B.WiUiams. Hotblack, K., leadershiP- Chatham's Colonial Policy, especiaUy chs. VTII-XH. KimbaU, G. S., ed. Correspondence of William Pitt with Colonial Governors. Ford, W. C, Washington, I, chs. III-VI. Lodge, H. C, American Washington, I, ch. III. See also Washington's Journal and letters leaders- in Writings (edited by Ford), I. Franklin, B., Autobiography in Writings (edited by Smyth) I, and letters ibid., III. Stone, W. L., Sir William Johnson (also short sketch of Johnson in Dictionary of National Biography). See also correspondence of Governors Shirley (edited by C. H. Lincoln) and Sharpe (Maryland Archives). Alvord, C. W., Illinois Centennial History, I, chs. VHI-XI. Western Henderson, A., Conquest of the Old Southwest, chs. III-VI. pt'a'ses- Thwaites, Early Western Travels, I (Weiser, Croghan). Winsor, J., Mississippi Basin (cartography and trade movements). Hul- bert, A. B., Historic Highways, III-V. Hanna, C. A., Wilderness Trail, and Scotch-Irish (mines of information, but hard to use). Beer, G. L., British Colonial Policy, chs. I-VIII. Alvord, British C. W., Mississippi Valley in British Politics, I, ch. II. Franklin, "j?™-,, Writings (edited by Smyth), IV. Foster, W. E., Stephen Hop- the war and kins (Rhode Island Historical Tracts) . Pitman, F. W., British West e peace' Indies, ch. XIV. CHAPTER XVII IMPERIAL PROBLEMS AND POLICIES, 1760 TO 1766 New imperialproblems. New prov inces of Canada and Florida. In the great struggle with France for colonial empire, England's resources and her statesmanship were severely taxed; but peace brought problems not less serious, demand ing an even higher type of leadership if the empire was to be held together. These problems were of many different kinds. In Asia, for instance, the British East India Com pany was no longer a mere trading corporation but had to assume responsibiUty for the government of alien peoples. For nearly a century more, British statesmen wrestled with the problem of ruling India through a commercial company in such a way as to secure decent administration as weU as a profitable income to the stockholders. A significant fact for the American colonies was the East India Com pany's monopoly of the China trade, including tea, an increasingly popular beverage on both sides of the water. In America old difficulties remained and new ones were added. In the north was Canada with perhaps eighty thousand people of alien race, reUgion, and law. These "new subjects" of the King had to be protected in the rights guaranteed to them by treaty; but the government also had to consider the "old subjects," from Great Britain and the older colonies, who, though few in numbers, were pushing aggressively into the conquered territory, chiefly for purposes of trade. Along the Gulf coast from the At lantic to the Mississippi was another conquered territory, consisting of Spanish Florida and the eastern section of French Louisiana. Here also there was the double duty wa,; WESTERN PROBLEMS 389 of governing the conquered inhabitants and regulating the activities of British traders and land speculators. An even more important and interesting problem was Western the management of the great western domain lying south problems- of the Great Lakes between the Alleghenies and the Mis sissippi. The interests to be considered were many and conflicting. First, there were the Indians, whose use of the country had been comparatively little affected by the few French posts scattered through the wilderness but who now feared a more serious invasion by British pioneers. Then there were the English fur traders, some working for themselves, others for companies great and smaU, fi nanced by American and British capital and eager to de velop the trade which they had begun before the war. Fi nally, there were the pioneer colonists, colony promoters, and land speculators, who hoped to establish new settle ments beyond the mountains. Within each group there were numerous conflicting interests. Pennsylvanians and Virginians came to blows, literaUy as well as figuratively, over land and trade in the upper Ohio valley. WeU-to-do land speculators, some with dreams of proprietary colonies Uke those of Baltimore and Penn, were eager for royal grants which would enable them to forestaU the squatters now fast pushing through the mountains. Some of these ques tions could wait, but others pressed for immediate action. EspeciaUy urgent was the Indian problem forced on the attention of the British government by the Conspiracy of Pontiac in 1763. At the outbreak of the French war the King had tried Indian to regulate Indian relations by appointing two superin- conspiracy tendents of Indian affairs, one for the North and one for o£ Pontiac- the South. These officials did some useful work; but they could not manage the scattered traders of the western country, and intercolonial jealousies interfered with co operation. NaturaUy these conditions led to great abuses, 39° IMPERIAL PROBLEMS AND POLICIES The Procla mation of 1763. Colonial ad ministrationinadequate. and the Indians were often treated quite unfairly. At this critical moment of increasing hostUity between the races, the Indians found an able leader in the Ottawa chief tain, Pontiac, through whose efforts a great combination was formed against the EngUsh. At first this "conspiracy" was remarkably successful. The British could not take possession of their new territory on the Mississippi; many of their western posts feU into the hands of the Indians; and there were destructive raids along the whole frontier. The ultimate faUure of the uprising was inevitable; but it emphasized the need of more unified and effective control of Indian affairs. The British government tried to gain time for the study of western problems by a temporary arrangement, which was embodied in the royal Proclamation of 1763. This order provided, first, for the organization of three new royal provinces out of the conquered territory on the con tinent: Quebec, which was limited to the St. Lawrence valley; East Florida; and West Florida. Most of the trans-AUegheny territory between the thirty-first parallel and the Great Lakes was treated as an Indian reservation, in which the seaboard governors were forbidden to make any further grants; settlers who had already entered it were required to withdraw. The Proclamation of 1763 was a natural and not unreasonable attempt to deal tem porarily with a pressing problem, whose permanent solution would require further consideration; but it had to meet an equaUy natural and almost irresistible westward move ment from the older colonies. It was not only the newly conquered territory which required attention from British statesmen. The whole machinery for colonial administration was felt to be quite inadequate. During the war the colonies, stimulated by Pitt's leadership, had done fairly weU in furnishing soldiers and suppffes, so weU indeed that Parliament appropriated PROBLEMS OF ADMINISTRATION 391 money to reimburse them for some of their expenses. Never theless the burden had been unevenly distributed and some provinces faUed to do their part. The recent wars had also shown more clearly than ever the weakness of the colonial customs service. The trade with the foreign West Indies which Parliament tried to check by the Molasses Act was continued on a large scale even with French and Spanish enemy ports. This commerce, covered by fraudulent prac tices, such as the use of "flags of truce," was profitable to the individual traders engaged in it; but from an imperial, or even broadly patriotic, point of view, it was highly ob jectionable because it helped the enemy islands to hold out against the British navy. Even so good a friend of the colonies as Pitt was exasperated by these irregular prac tices and tried to stop them by drastic methods, including the use of naval vessels. This use of the navy continued after the war ended and was very unpopular. In general, then, British statesmen were led by the war, pians for re- and the resulting expansion of the empire, to consider more orsanizatl0n' seriously the problems of colonial administration. They were becoming more and more convinced that there should be a tightening of the bonds which united the colonies with the mother country, in order that the empire as a whole might act efficiently, whether for economic purposes or for common defense. This movement for a more efficient imperial system was natural enough, and to a great extent legitimate. It came, however, at a time when equaUy natural and legitimate forces were making themselves felt in America in the direction of greater freedom from external control. For one thing, the continental colonies were growing Growth so rapidly that they felt, more confidently than ever before, "l^^ a their own strength and importance. Immigration was going n^fij^ on steadUy and the natural increase in population was also large; for cheap land and a brisk demand for labor made 392 IMPERIAL PROBLEMS AND POLICIES Americanfeeling about the empire. possible early marriages and large famUies. A few Ameri cans, including Franklin, looked forward to a time when the population of the colonies would be larger than that of the mother country. No wonder that European observers began to doubt whether British America would always be content to remain a subordinate part of the empire. The French war and its results also stimulated American self-consciousness and self-confidence. In its beginning the war was large ly an affair of the colonists themselves, and though Brit ish regulars afterwards played the more important part, the final victory could hardly have been won without pro vincial cooperation on a large scale. None of the great commanders were colonials, but some provincial officers made excellent records and won a continental reputation. One New England colonel, Phineas Lyman, deserved the chief credit for the repulse of the French army in the battle of Lake George. Another Yankee officer, Bradstreet, com manded the attack on Fort Frontenac-, one of the best- managed expeditions of the war. In the terrible months of border warfare after Braddock's defeat, Washington won an enviable reputation which went far beyond the limits of Virginia. There were a few civilians also whose leadership expanded beyond provincial limits. Chief among them was Franklin, who, in the midst of general inefficiency, rendered substantial service to the unlucky Braddock, and whose opinions on the difficult problem of colonial union were sought and respected even by royal officials who did not agree with him. On the whole and for the time being, the achievements of the war stimulated the patriotic pride of Americans in the great empire to which they belonged. The heroes of the war were gratefuUy remembered. To General Howe, who fell at Ticonderoga, Massachusetts set up a monument in Westminster Abbey, and Pitt had a unique place in the affections of his American feUow subjects. In this growing VIEWS OF FRANKLIN 393 empire, however, Americans were demanding more liberal recognition. Their leaders were sensitive to slights, and tact was not the strong point of most British officials in America, or of their superiors at home. Even such an admi rable officer as Wolfe shared the expert's impatience with the provincial mUitiamen, — their slackness in discipline and their ignorance of military technique. In the early years of the war, no provincial commission above the grade of captain was formaUy recognized by the British military authorities. Few Americans of that time were more attached to Opinions of England and the EngUsh people than Franklin; but he wrote to one of his friends in Scotland that "the foundations of the future grandeur and stabUity of the British Empire lie in America." He complained that heretofore "a petty corporation" or a "particular set of artificers or traders in England" had sometimes "been more regarded than aU the colonies." British statesmen, he thought, should get over the idea of 'discriminating in favor of a particular group of their feUow subjects. What difference did it make from a truly imperial point of view "whether a merchant, a smith, or a hatter" grew rich in "Old or New England"? H there were to be any partiality at aU, should it not be shown to those who worked for the good of the empire "at the risk of their own lives and private fortunes in new and strange countries" ? Back of these opinions, too, was the personality of a man who in spirit at least was no longer provincial, who felt himself at ease in the best intellectual company of Europe. Franklin was an exceptional American, of course; but there were also young men coming forward, like John Adams, in Massachusetts, and Thomas Jefferson in Virginia, whose thinking, in some respects at least, was outgrowing provincial limitations. With Americans of this sort to deal with, it was not New friction ... P 1 over old easy to maintain even the existmg system of control, not to iSSUes. speak of that "closer dependence" which was the constant 394 EMPERIAL PROBLEMS AND POLICIES aim of imperiaUst officials on both sides of the Atlantic. In one colony after another, there was new friction over old issues. Colonial assembUes had used the necessities of the war as a means of extorting concessions from their governors, who complained bitterly of encroachments on their own prerogatives and those of the Crown. The old dispute whether judges should be removable at discretion or serve as in England during good behavior loomed up again, and a New Jersey governor who yielded to local pressure on this question was disciphned by dismissal from his office. In Maryland and Pennsylvania the provincial assembUes were exasperated by the stubborn insistence of the proprietors on having their lands exempted from taxa tion; and when the war ended, the Pennsylvania assembly sent Franklin to England to work for the overthrow of the proprietary rule and the establishment of a royal govern ment in its place. Outstanding Among the provincial controversies which disturbed the con rov j harmony between the colonies and the mother country 1761-1763. during the closing years of the war period, two have always had a prominent place in the story of the Revolution. These were the "Parson's Cause" in Virginia and the case of the "writs of assistance" in Massachusetts. Neither affair in volved any new principle of British poUcy, but they are significant because of the fundamental issues discussed, the character of the men thus brought to the front as leaders of the American opposition, and their effect on public opin ion in these two important colonies. The Par- The Parson's Cause had its starting point in the Vir ginia system under which the salaries of clergymen as well as of civU officers were provided by public taxation; thus the annual salary of a minister was fixed at sixteen thousand pounds of tobacco. Unfortunately tobacco was constantly fluctuating in value; when the price went up the parishioners thought the clergy were getting too much. During the war son's Cause. THE PARSON'S CAUSE 395 crops were poor, prices rose, and the planters complained that the clergy were profiting by the necessities of the people. So in 1755 and 1758 the assembly ordered the payment of the church tax in money instead of tobacco, at the rate of two pence a pound, considerably below the market rate. The clergy protested against this legislation, pointing out that in the past they had not been compen sated for faUing prices; but public opinion was against them. FaUing to get reUef in Virginia, the clergy appealed to Appeal to the King and in 1759 secured an order in councU annuUing the Kmg> the objectionable law. In this again there was nothing new, for colonial statutes had often been vetoed by the Crown. The question now arose, however, whether this royal order was retroactive, so as to affect salaries payable between the passage of the act and its repeal by the Crown. To determine this point, suits were brought by several of the clergy, and in one case the magistrates of Hanover County ruled that the act of 1758 was void. In order, however, to determine the payment due under the old law, a jury verdict was required, with unexpected results. The parishioners engaged the services of Patrick Henry, Patrick a young lawyer of twenty-seven, who, though of a good enry" famUy, sympathized with the smaU farmers of the upland districts rather than with the planter aristocracy. One of Henry's uncles was an Anglican clergyman and he him self belonged to that church; but his mother was a Presbyterian and the young man had inherited a certain sympathy for the dissenters. In his argument on the case Henry refused to recognize the royal veto as final, de nounced it as tyrannical, and made a violent attack on the established clergy. The jury, which included some dissenters, Ustened with approval, and their verdict of only one penny damages for the plaintiff practically nullified the former decision of the court on the question of principle. 396 IMPERIAL PROBLEMS AND POLICD3S Other cases came up and the issue was taken to the Privy Council in England; but the clergy could not secure any practical redress. Thus an obscure provincial lawyer, supported by strong popular feeling, had successfuUy attacked a recognized prerogative of the crown. Inciden taUy, also, the democracy of the back country had found an eloquent spokesman. "Writs of Two years before Henry's notable speech, a Massa- asastance. chusetts lawyer had questioned the vaffdity of an act of ParUament. In this case also there was an economic griev ance. The Massachusetts merchants were disturbed be cause stricter enforcement of customs regulations was cut ting into their business, especiaUy with the foreign West Indies. They now objected strenuously to the use, for this purpose, of the so-caUed "writs of assistance," or gen eral search warrants, differing from the ordinary variety in not specifying the premises to be searched. These writs were offensive both because they were used to enforce unpopular duties and because they might cause annoyance to innocent persons; but they were authorized by act of Parliament and there were precedents for them in America as weU as in England. When, therefore, the death of George H made it necessary to secure new writs in the name of his successor, the judges were apparently bound to issue them as a matter of course. The merchants, however, determined to make a stand, and engaged as their counsel lames Otis. James Otis, a rising lawyer, who resigned his royal com mission as advocate-general in order to take the case. Re fusing to confine himself to the technical points immedi ately involved, Otis raised a much larger issue. Relying on certain EngUsh opinions of the early seventeenth century, he argued that Parliament was limited by the fundamental principles of the common law. General warrants, he held, were contrary to these principles and therefore Ulegal, acts of Parliament to the contrary notwithstanding. Otis's BRITISH POLITICS 397 argument made enough impression to delay action, but in the end his clients were defeated and the writs were issued. Meantime Otis had made his reputation as a defender of colonial rights, and got before his feUow provincials the doctrine that even the power of ParUament had its consti tutional limitations. Such incidents as the Parson's Cause and the fight over The need of writs of assistance were not of course sufficient in themselves JStesman- to endanger the union of Great Britain and her colonies. Yet shiP- they developed a sensitive public opinion which could easily be aroused against any attempt to extend the field of parlia mentary action beyond the customary limits. Under these circumstances, the task of reconciling imperial efficiency with American ideas of self-government certainly demanded statesmanship of the highest order. Unfortunately, such statesmanship was painfuUy rare among those who then shaped the poUcies of the British government. The beginning of a new reign is not always very im- British portant; but the succession of George III in 1760 was a ^a*3 m momentous event for the British Empire. Certainly the new king began his reign in a very different spirit from that of his immediate predecessors and with strong convictions about his constitutional rights. Under the first two Han overian kings the actual government of Great Britain was mainly controlled by the Whigs, though their organization had been weakened of late by the independent leadership of Pitt. The nucleus of this "Old Whig" organization was a group of great noble famUies who professed a kind of aristocratic Uberalism. More particularly they advocated the constitutional principles of the "glorious revolution" of 1688, including the sovereignty of Parliament as against the personal wUl of the King. Their power rested partly on their wealth and social prestige, which gave them great influence in the choice of members of the House of Com mons; but they could also count on the merchant class 398 IMPERIAL "PROBLEMS AND POLICIES and the dissenters, who for various reasons joined the Whigs in supporting the Protestant succession against the Stuart pretenders. Meantime, the old Tory party, dis credited by its Jacobite members, almost disappeared and poUtics degenerated into factional contests between Whigs in office and Whigs out of office. Under this system the The Hano- King had Uttle to say except sometimes about mUitary venan kings. matters or continental foreign poUcy, in which as Elector of Hanover he had a special interest. Nearly everything was decided by the ministry, which once in power domi nated the House of Commons through a majority largely composed of officeholders. All this could be done without much difficulty when the king was a foreigner, iU informed about English politics and quite aware that too much interference on his part might cost him his throne. With the accession of George III, however, the situation was radically changed. George HI For one thing, the Hanoverian dynasty, after two reigns UticaMdeas. covermg about half a century, was at last securely estab lished. Except for a handful of enthusiasts no one took the claims of the Stuarts seriously. Even conservative country gentlemen of Tory antecedents could now promise unre served loyalty to the new king, who, unlike his predecessors, was born in England and in his first speech gloried "in the name of Britain." In matters of personal decency, too, George III was infinitely superior to his immediate predecessors. These were great advantages and George was determined to use them in order to secure for himself a posi tion of real dignity and power. His political theories were not those of the Whigs, who asserted the complete supremacy of Parliament over the Crown, but rather those of the Tory phffosopher-statesman, Lord Bolingbroke. The "patriot king, " according to Bolingbroke, should be no puppet carry ing out the wUl of this or that group of party politicians, but a real leader rising above parties to speak for the nation GEORGE III AND THE WHIG FACTIONS 399 as a whole. That was the kind of king George III meant to be if he could, and he nearly succeeded. Of the stubborn determination necessary for such a program, he had more than enough; but he lacked the breadth of intelligence and sympathy necessary to the government of a world-wide empire. The King's first move was fairly successful. His peace The fall poUcy, developed under the influence of his Scotch tutor, ^Bute Lord Bute, soon brought him into conflict with Pitt, who numstry. sympathized with the King in his dislike of party govern ment but was too proud to remain in a cabinet which he could not control. Bute became secretary of state and soon crowded out Newcastle, the chief of the Whig poUticians. Thus within two years of his accession George was able to put his personal representative and favorite into the position hitherto held by the leader of the dominant party. The new ministry was also able, partly at least through corrup tion, to secure the election of a compffant ParUament. In his conflict with the old Whig machine, George III had some support from liberal-minded men. Even some Ameri cans, like Franklin, beUeved in his patriotism and sympa thized with his fight against the old-line politicians. Unfor tunately for the King's policy, Lord Bute's personaUty was not popular; he was not an Englishman but a Scotchman and was beUeved to owe his position to backstairs in fluence with the Queen Mother and the King. The French treaty also was highly unpopular. So Bute, who had taken office reluctantly, was glad to retire, though he stUl had great influence over the King. The break-up of the Whig party into warring factions, The Whig which had begun in the last years of George II, now seemed ac 10ns- complete. Some of these factions professed more or less definite principles; but in the main they were dominated by personal ambitions and interests, some of which affected directly the management of colonial affairs. One of these 400 IMPERIAL PROBLEMS AND POLICIES The "Old Whigs." The "Pittites.' GeorgeGrenville. The "Blooms-bury gang." groups, known as the "Old Whigs," was led at first by the veteran poUtician, Newcastle, and later by the Marquis of Rockingham, a wealthy and pubUc-spirited, but inteUec- tuaUy second-rate nobleman. The best mind in this party was Edmund Burke, a young and comparatively obscure Irishman, who made himself an expert on American affairs, served for a time as a colonial agent, and later, as member of ParUament for Bristol, made some famous speeches on concUiation with America. A second group was led by WiUiam Pitt. Though Pitt was not fond of the "Old Whigs" and disliked their whole system of party government, he was too masterful a personality and too Uberal in some respects to work steadUy with the King. The "Pittites" took a keen interest in overseas problems and may fairly be called "Uberal imperiaUsts. " Pitt was in office very little after 1761; but he was a great figure in Parliament untU his death in 1778. His ablest foUower was the young Earl of Shelburne, who as president of the Board of Trade and secretary of state had a good deal to do with American affairs. During the next twenty years it was these two groups, the "Old Whigs" and the "Pittites," which on the whole were most sympathetic toward America, though neither was able to work out a reaUy constructive poUcy. There were two other groups, led respectively by George Grenville and the Duke of Bedford, whose attitude toward America was much less friendly. GrenviUe, who was con nected with Pitt by marriage but did not act with him politi cally, became a member of the Bute ministry and was se lected as Bute's successor when the latter retired. GrenviUe thus became officiaUy responsible for the new poUcy of colonial taxation. The foUowers of Bedford, commonly caUed the "Bloomsbury gang" were on the whole conserv ative, though without very definite principles. The Duke himself was one of the chief landed magnates of the king dom and his foUowers were notorious for a particularly PARLIAMENTARY FACTIONS 40 1 cynical kind of politics even in a time of generaUy low standards. Cutting across these factional lines to a certain extent other influ- were other divisions based on economic interests. The parfament county members, who represented the landed gentry in the House of Commons, were a conservative but com paratively uncorrupt element. They kept a sharp eye on any proposal which might require more taxes from them and took kindly to the idea of getting some revenue out of the colonies. A new element, especiaUy obnoxious to the country gentlemen, were the "nabobs," who had made for tunes in the East India trade and, like some present-day American mUUonaires, were ready to spend money freely for poUtical honors, thus raising uncomfortably the market prices for seats in the House of Commons. Then there were the merchants of London, Bristol, and other important ports, who stood for the enforcement of the acts of trade, but sometimes raised their voices against measures which might provoke American retaliation and so interfere with then- colonial business. In this chaos of factions, it was almost impossible to The "King's form party cabinets capable of carrying out any weU-con- sidered and continuous poUcy. Ministries were therefore generaUy made up of men belonging to different factions and holding quite different opinions on the leading issues of the day. To speak of Whig and Tory parties during this period is quite misleading. No such definite party division existed during the whole period of the American Revolution. In these troubled waters George III found his opportunity. He played off one faction against another and did not scruple to use public funds either to buy elec tions or to buy members after election. So there came to be a group of men in Parliament whose votes the King could control, sometimes even against the ministry. These "King's Friends," or court party, became increasingly in- 402 IMPERIAL PROBLEMS AND POLICIES Grenville and his ad ministration. Readjust ment of the acts of trade. fluential, so much so as to endanger the whole principle of parliamentary government When George GrenviUe became prime minister, in 1763, he had already learned as secretary of state something about American business, and now for the next two years he became the chief exponent of British poUcy in America. GrenviUe has not an enviable place in American history but he had some good quaUties; he was honest, he had the courage of his convictions, and he was a real reformer. Some years later he secured the passage of a biff which made it possible to decide contested elections on some other basis than favoritism or partisan advantage. In the same spirit he now insisted that men who held colonial offices should actuaUy administer them, instead of merely drawing salaries in England and getting cheap substitutes to do the real work. It is a picturesque exaggeration to say that GrenviUe was the first secretary to read the American dispatches and discover how far the actual management of colonial business was from the theory; that had been pretty weU understood in official circles for some time. He was, however, particularly conscientious in this respect. Un fortunately aU his information about irregularities in colo nial trade never gave him any real insight into the colonial point of view, which he considered quite unreasonable and perverse. The first result of GrenviUe's studies and those of his advisers on the Board of Trade was a conviction that the customs administration in America needed to be tight ened up and adjusted to new conditions. Not all of the changes which he carried through ParUament were injurious to the colonies; old bounties on the importation of Ameri can hemp were revived, and the reduction of duties on whale fins put the New England whalers on a better footing in the EngUsh market. Nevertheless, the main features of the old legislation were retained and more stringent THE REVENUE PROBLEM 403 measures taken for their enforcement. The use of the navy for this purpose was authorized by law; the jurisdiction of the courts of admiralty in revenue cases was enlarged; and governors were urged to keep a sharp lookout for iUegal trade. GrenvUle faced a particularly knotty problem when he took up the Molasses Act of 1733, which had run so squarely against the normal course of American trade that no serious effort was made to enforce it. He now decided to substitute for the old molasses duty of sixpence per gal lon, which, if enforced, would have stopped the trade with the foreign West Indies altogether and therefore yielded no revenue, a lower duty of threepence per gaUon which was reaUy to be coUected. This change was accordingly made in the Sugar Act of 1764, and it began to look as if the northern merchants in particular would lose a large share of the profits which they had made in the old easy-going days. Disturbing as this was in itself, there were other features of the Sugar Act which indicated a new and unlucky turn in British colonial policy. The idea of raising a revenue in America by act of Par- American Uament had occurred to many people during the first half of the eighteenth century, but cautious statesmen like Wal pole and Pitt fought shy of it. Now, however, the temp tation was stronger than ever. The country gentlemen were anxious to get rid of war taxes, but there was a heavy war debt and the new territories in America seemed to demand more expensive machinery for defense and for the regulation of Indian affairs. What, it was said, could be fairer than to require the colonists to contribute their share, and how could they be made to do so regularly without an act of Parliament? That was probably the most common ar gument back of the demand for American taxation. Another idea, somewhat in the background, was quite famUiar to a group of men who had studied colonial problems in the Board of Trade. How, they argued, could England control taxation. 404 IMPERIAL PROBLEMS AND POLICIES her colonial governments properly so long as the royal governors and other officials were dependent on temporary grants of provincial assembUes, when governors and judges could be coerced by reducing their salaries or cutting them off altogether? Why not, then, estabUsh a parUamentary revenue which should be raised in America but determined in England, thus securing governments independent of local pressure, more fuUy controUed by the Crown, and more faithful in the enforcement of British statutes? The Sugar So the Sugar Act of 1764 began with a memorable pre- ' I? 4" amble, declaring it "just and necessary that a revenue be raised" in the King's "dominions in America, " now "happUy enlarged," "for defraying the expences of defending, pro tecting, and securing the same." For this purpose, duties were levied not only on molasses and sugar imported from the foreign plantations, but also on coffee, wines, East India goods, and other foreign commodities. The colonial mer chants were much disturbed by this act, especiaUy in the matter of the West Indian trade; but the importance of the revenue feature was not fully realized, partly because some external duties had long been levied in connection with the Navigation Acts. The great issue of taxation without representation was not clearly defined untU the passage of the Stamp Act, which was proposed by Gren viUe in 1764 but not actuaUy adopted until the foUowing Need of more year. It was known that the revenue provided by the act of 1764 was only about one seventh of the amount needed to support the army in America. The govern ment, therefore, looked about for other American sources of revenue, and concluded that the simplest method was a stamp tax, requiring the use of stamps on a great variety of official and legal documents, which were neces sary or desirable for the orderly transaction of pubUc and private business. Before putting the Stamp Act through the House of THE STAMP ACT 405 Commons, GrenvUle asked the colonial assembUes to sug- The stamp gest alternative methods of securing a steady revenue; Act passed' but they had nothing to propose except a continuance of the old requisition system. Petitions sent from America against the new tax were not taken seriously; for, as Gren vUle said, "ah men wished not to be taxed." So in the early months of 1765 the Stamp Act was passed with httle opposition. Franklin, then in England as agent for Penn sylvania, was chiefly interested in trying to have that colony Franklin's made into a royal province. A few years before he had attitude- argued against parliamentary taxation; but he does not seem to have been much excited about the question at this time. In one of his arguments in favor of a royal gov ernment in Pennsylvania, he said that the British author ities might think it necessary to secure "some revenue" from the American trade for the purpose of supporting the troops and that his fellow provincials might be reconciled to it "after a few years' experience." Franklin opposed the act, noting provisions which he thought particularly hard on lawyers and on his feUow craftsmen, the printers; but he thought it no more practicable to defeat the bill than to prevent "the sun's setting." He even secured a coUector's commission for one of his Pennsylvania friends, and sug gested that tactful management of that office might "by degrees" lessen its unpopularity. WhUe this momentous business was being done in Eng- sources of land, a storm was fast gathering in America. The stricter Content. dis" enforcement of the acts of trade was cutting the profits of colonial merchants, especiaUy in the West India trade, which suppUed the northern colonies not only with sugar and molasses but also with hard money. Attempts to make up the shortage of specie by the issue of legal-tender paper money were blocked, for New England, by the British law of 1751; and the Currency Act of 1764 appUed this restriction to aU the colonies. To these grievances there 406 IMPERIAL PROBLEMS AND POLKXES Statements of the American case. Otis. PatrickHenry. were now added the new duties imposed by the Sugar Act and the Stamp Act. It is to be remembered, too, that whUe some of the earUer measures had comparatively little effect on the southern planters, the Stamp Act, estabUshing for the first time a direct internal tax, created a new issue which could be presented to merchants, planters, and farmers alike. , The debate in the colonies began even before the Stamp Act was passed, with some vigorous pamphlets setting forth the American point of view. One of the most aggressive was James Otis 's Rights of the British Colonies A sserted and Proved. Otis now appUed to the Stamp Act his theory that ParUament was limited by a fundamental law and that even acts approved by King, Lords, and Commons might be unconstitutional and invaUd. To levy taxes on the colonies without their consent or that of persons definitely selected by them was "absolutely irreconcUable" with their rights as "British subjects and as men." What then was the remedy? Here Otis shrank Jrom the extreme appUcation of his principles. Though he seemed to believe that unconstitutional leg islation could be corrected by the courts, his practical con clusion in this case was that the power of ParUament was "uncontroulable, but by themselves, and we must obey," trusting that ParUament itself would reconsider its decision. In the preliminary fight against the passage of the Stamp Act, Northerners Uke Otis of Massachusetts and Stephen Hopkins of Rhode Island were probably the most con spicuous. After it became law, the leadership in resistance was taken by Virginia. By this time Patrick Henry had become a member of the House of Burgesses and was gather ing a group of radical members, some, like himself, from the western counties, and others, largely young men, who be longed to the planter class, but were dissatisfied with the older leaders. This radical element took up the issue of parUamentary taxation and forced through some vigorous ARGUMENTS AGAINST TAXATION 407 resolutions, asserting the right of the Virginians to be Virginia governed by their own assembly in matters of taxation and resolutions- "internal police." The fiery speech of Henry in support of these resolutions has not come down to us in any accurate form; but it certainly made a strong impression on friends and enemies alike, with its daring comparison of George III with Caesar and Charles I. To Governor Fauquier writing home to England, Henry's language appeared "very indecent"; but Thomas Jefferson, a young law student in Williamsburg, Ustened with admiration to an orator who seemed "to speak as Homer wrote." Virginia had gone on record, and in other colonies, where Economic men were hesitating and final submission to the Stamp Act ^o^ti' seemed quite possible, the news from the Old Dominion arguments. proved an "alarm beU to the disaffected." Numerous pam phlets were issued, setting forth a great variety of arguments. Efforts were made to convince ParUament that the new taxes were unjust because the colonies were already contributing liberally to the royal treasury through their commerce, which had to pass largely through British ports and was there sub ject to British customs. It was also argued that the new poUcies were bad for British as weU as American interests. Taxation and new trade restrictions were making it harder for Americans to spend money on English goods. To press this argument home, the colonists were urged to cut down their purchases of imported articles. Sometimes special emphasis was laid on the constitutional argument, denying the right, as weU as the justice and expediency, of colonial taxation. Nearly aU admitted the general legislative author ity of Parliament over the whole empire; but there were a few exceptions. Richard Bland, whose learning was much admired by his Virginia neighbors, wrote a pamphlet asserting in substance that the existing union of England and the colonies was simply a personal union like that between England and Scotland under the Stuart kings. He agreed 408 IMPERIAL PROBLEMS AND POLICIES The Stamp Act Congress. Appeal to force. that Virginians and New Englanders owed aUegiance to George III, but denied that ParUament had any real authority over them. In 1766, when Bland's pamphlet appeared, few Americans were quite so radical as this, but in later years the doctrine became more popular. Differing as they did in their modes of attack, the sober judgment of the Americans was best expressed by the Stamp Act Congress, which met in New York in October, 1765. Only nine colonies were represented, and one of the assembUes which had no chance to choose delegates was Virginia; but the Congress was fairly representative of the colonies as a whole, including not only radicals but moderates and con servatives as weU. Even Massachusetts sent with Otis two conservatives, one of whom was chosen president of the Congress. Nevertheless the resolutions adopted were strongly, though cautiously, worded. The delegates were doubtless quite sincere in expressing their loyalty to the King. They were even ready to admit "aU due subordina tion to that august body the parUament of Great Britain"; but "due subordination" did not include taxation because the colonists were not and could not be represented in ParUament. The Congress had its own theory of represen tation; no one could represent the American colonies ex cept "persons chosen therein by themselves." The resolu tions also objected to the provision recently made for more general use of admiralty courts, without juries, in the trial of revenue cases. Pamphlets and resolutions helped to raUy American opinion against "taxation without representation" and against the new restrictions on trade; but they were not the most effective arguments. Whether the Stamp Act was right or wrong, the tax evidently could not be coUected without the greatest difficulty. The fives of stamp distributors were made miserable by their neighbors and most of them were glad to resign. Newspapers were published and ship's papers THE ROCKINGHAM MINISTRY 409 issued without the prescribed stamps; after a time the courts began to do business in simUar disregard of the law. Here and there, occurred outrageous acts of violence against unpopular officials, of which the colonists themselves were soon ashamed, as when a Boston mob attacked the house of Chief- Justice Thomas Hutchinson. In fact, the opposition which the northern merchants had done so much to stir up was getting beyond their control and faUing under the influence of more radical leaders. Probably the most suc cessful argument against the tax was its effect on British trade. Already American purchases from England had fallen off and one colony after another was adopting nonimpor tation agreements which seemed likely to hurt the trade still more. Many of the EngUsh merchants, therefore, began to throw their influence in favor of repealing the Stamp Act. Meantime, the GrenvUle ministry had gone out of office. English The King was troubled by the American disturbances; but jj^nf5 The he had other reasons for the change, not the least of which m?^gham was his personal dislike of GrenvUle, whom he considered too independent and something of a bore. The King was ready to take Pitt again; but a satisfactory combination could not be made and he therefore had to accept a cabinet made up mainly of the " Old Whigs, " with the young Mar quis of Rockingham as prime minister, but including some members from other factions. The King, however, liked the new ministers no better than their predecessors, and I their faUure to secure Pitt's cooperation left them without first-rate leadership. It was this comparatively weak govern ment which in the winter of 1765-1766 had to face the American uprising against the Stamp Act. The ministry was certainly in a trying position. Some- Debate on thing had to be done to restore order in America and revive colonial commerce; but it was not easy to repeal the Stamp Act without seeming to countenance colonial arguments against the authority of Parliament. In this dilemma, three taxation. 4io IMPERIAL PROBLEMS AND POLICIES The Gren- ville-Mans- field theory. Pitt's views. possible policies were proposed by representative leaders. GrenviUe and his friends stood firmly for the absolute sovereignty of Parliament. They were equaUy certain that this authority had been rightly exercised in the passage of the Stamp Act and that its repeal would be a humiliating and disastrous surrender to rebellious subjects. GrenvUle was supported by Chief- Justice Mansfield, the greatest law yer of the time, who made a strong legal argument against the American doctrine of representation. Parliament, he said, was the sovereign authority for the whole empire. In the House of Commons were represented not only the small fraction of the EngUsh people who actuaUy voted for mem bers, but the whole nation, including the dominions beyond the sea. When, therefore, the colonists claimed that Parlia ment represented only those who elected its members, then- argument went squarely against the orthodox EngUsh theory of representation. The colonists had repeatedly submitted to acts of Parliament, and the distinction which they now made between external duties and internal taxes was, in his opinion, quite Ulogical. The Grenville-Mansfield doctrine was vigorously at tacked by Pitt and he, too, was supported by a distin guished lawyer, Lord Camden. Pitt believed as strongly as Mansfield in the lawmaking power of Parliament over the whole empire; but he insisted that taxation was some thing quite distinct from legislation. The House of Com mons could rightly grant the money of English subjects at home because it was chosen by the substantial landowners of England, who "virtually represent the rest of the inhabit ants"; but to extend this notion of "virtual representa tion" to America was "the most contemptible idea that ever entered into the head of a man. " Like the Americans, Pitt distinguished between taxes levied for revenue and duties for the regulation of trade, even though the latter might incidentaUy bring in revenue. The latter were justifiable, THE STAMP ACT REPEALED 411 the former were not. So Pitt said, "I rejoice that America has resisted." Powerful as Pitt stiU was, responsibliUty for leadership Policy of the rested with the Rockingham ministry, which finaUy decided mM^3™ to take a somewhat different position from that of either GrenvUle or Pitt. The ministers did not deny the Mans field theory of the absolute sovereignty of Parliament; but as a practical matter, they decided against the stamp tax because it was unfair, contrary to the spirit of EngUsh Uberty, and likely to do more harm than good. So they proposed to repeal the Stamp Act; but also to adopt a resolution asserting that ParUament might at its discretion bind the colonies "in all cases whatsoever." On the same day that Lord Mansfield made his memorable Franklin speech, the House of Commons ordered Franklin to appear House of before it for examination. Franklin now declared emphati- Commons- cally that the Americans would resist all internal taxes. So far, he said, they had been entirely loyal, accepting even the duties which had been laid on their external trade; but, if the discussion continued, they might forget that distinction and reject any kind of tax or duty. Already, he thought, the feeling of Americans toward England had been changed for the worse. Formerly they had been proud to "indulge in the fashions and manufactures of Great Britain"; now it was their pride to "wear their old clothes over again tUl they can make new ones. " The Stamp Act could not be enforced by the British army; if troops were used for this purpose, they would not find a revolution, but they might make one. In March, 1766, ParUament voted by a decisive Stamp Act rCDC3.I6Q majority in favor of repeal. At the same time, however, the Declaratory Declaratory Act was passed, condemning the American Act- doctrine that ParUament could not legaUy tax the colonies and asserting in the most sweeping language that Parliament had and "ought to have" authority to "bind the colonies 412 IMPERIAL PROBLEMS AND POLICIES and people of America, subjects of the crown of Great Britain, in aU cases whatsoever." Generalreferences. Collected sources. Englishpolitics. English sources. Controversy in America. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES Andrews, Colonial Period, ch. X. Becker, C. L., Eve of the American Revolution, 1-115. Channing, United States, III, chs. I-III. Fisher, S. G., Struggle for American Independence, I, chs. I-VIII (iconoclastic). Frothingham, R., Rise of the Republic, ch. V. Howard, G. E., Preliminaries of the Revolution, chs. I-LX. Lecky, W. E. H., England in the Eighteenth Century, III (fair- minded British statement; same material in Lecky, American Revolution). Winsor, America, VI, 1-34. Bancroft, United States (author's last revision), III, chs. I-XVI, and Beer, G. L., British Colonial Policy, 1754-1763, chs. IX-XIV, Ulustrate the difference between older and later views. Macdonald, Select Charters, nos. 53, 55-60. Hart, Contempo raries, II, chs. XXI, XXIII, especiaUy no. 143 (Franklin's ex amination). Hart and Channing, American History Leaflets, no, 33 (Writs of Assistance). McLaughlin et al., Source Problems in U. S. History, Problem II. Alvord, Mississippi Valley in British Politics, I, chs. I-IX. Fitzmaurice, E., Skelburne, I, especiaUy chs. IV-VII. Hunt, W., Political History of England, 1760-1801, 1-72. Von RuvUle, Pitt, III, ch. VIII. WUUams, B., Chatham, ch. XXI. Annual Register. Cobbett, W., Parliamentary History, XVI, especiaUy 97-181 (including speeches by Pitt, GrenvUle, and Mansfield), 137-161 (Franklin's examination). Grenville, G., Papers. Jenyns, S., Objections to the Taxation of Our American Colonies Briefly Considered (1765; also in his Works, II). Hertz, G. B., Old Colonial System, ch. IV, and Holland, B., Imperium et Libertas, pt. I, give recent EngUsh views. Henry, W. W., Patrick Henry, I, chs. I-IV. Tyler, M. C, Patrick Henry, chs. I-V. Hosmer, J. K., S. Adams, chs. I-VL Lincoln, C. H., Revolutionary Movement in Pennsylvania, chs. I-VII. McCrady, South Carolina, 1710-1776, chs. XXVH, XXVIII. Tyler, M. C, Literary History of the American Revo lution, I, chs. I-V. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 413 Important pamphlets by R. Bland, S. Hopkins, J. Otis. See also writings of FranMin (Smyth edition, IV; or Life Written by Himself, edited by Bigelow), S. Adams, and J. Adams (Diary in Works, H). Beer and Alvord as above. Schlesinger, A. M., Colonial Mer chants and the American Revolution {Columbia Studies). Weeden, New England, II, ch. XIX. Alvord, Illinois Centennial History, I, chs. XII-XIII. CaUender, Selections from Economic History of the U. S., 122- 148. Bogart and Thompson, Readings in Economic History of U. S., 143-169. Hart, Contemporaries, II, ch. XXII. American sources. Economic phases;western problems. Sources. CHAPTER XVHI THE EVE OF REVOLUTION, 1766 TO 1774 The taxa tion issue unsettled. Lack of constructive statesmanship. Franklinon the constitutionof the empire. The repeal of the Stamp Act did not settle the issue of taxation without representation; for Parliament had ex pressly asserted its absolute sovereignty over the colonies, and the revenue duties laid by the Sugar Act were stiU in force. On the specific issue of the stamp tax, however, the Americans had won a notable victory and for the moment they were too enthusiastic about that to think much about the theory of the Declaratory Act. So Pitt and other friends in ParUament were gratefully remembered and George IH came in for his share of the general good feeling. It is easy to see now that no progress had been made toward a constructive policy which should safeguard the com mon interests of the empire, including America, and yet har monize with traditional ideals of liberty and self-government. Among those common interests was the working out of an effective and liberal plan for the management of the great undeveloped country beyond the mountains. The revenue poUcy, which was intended to finance the administration of the western territory, had broken down; but no other solution had been worked out. A few men in England and in America were thinking about these matters in a states manlike spirit, but they were rare exceptions. Franklin was one of those exceptional men and for many years had given serious thought to the constitutional relations of the colonies with the mother country. At one time he thought that a legislative union was desirable, with American representa tives sitting side by side with those of England, Wales, and 414 PITT AND SHELBURNE 415 Scotland in the Parliament at Westminster. He concluded, however, that British pride would stand in the way. "Every man in England," [he said, "seems to consider himself a piece of a sovereign over America." Meantime, most Americans were too much absorbed by local interests and in warding off real or supposed encroachments on their rights to do any important constructive thinking. So the common interests of the EngUsh-speaking peoples were largely at the mercy of shortsighted politicians. About four months after the repeal of the Stamp Act, The the Rockingham ministry feU and once more Pitt was called Graftonm" in to form a cabinet, this time with the Duke of Grafton, ministry. an able young nobleman with some statesmanlike ideals, but an unfortunate personal reputation. FoUowing Pitt's theories, the new ministry was made up of men from differ ent groups, so much so that it could not act harmoniously. With Pitt at his best the discordant elements might have been puffed together; but this was not the case. His pro motion to the House of Lords, as Earl of Chatham, was de scribed with some truth as a "faU upstairs" for the "great commoner." Poor health not only robbed him of that ex traordinary vigor which had carried him through his great war ministry, but also made it harder for others to work with him. After a few months of service, Pitt broke down and retired to the country, leaving a practically headless govern ment behind him. Two of Pitt's coUeagues are especiaUy important for shelbume their part in American affairs. One was the Earl of Shel- problems of burne, who, as secretary of state for the Southern Depart- the West- ment, was chiefly responsible for American affairs. Three years before, as president of the Board of Trade, he had taken a leading part in the discussion which led up to the Proclamation of 1763. The reservation of the western territory to the Indians was in his mind only a temporary poUcy, to be foUowed by more constructive measures. 416 THE EVE OF REVOLUTION, 1766-1774 After careful study he now favored a policy of westward expansion, including land cessions from. the Indians, which would open up the territory to new settlers, and the for mation of new governments on Uberal principles. He hoped to secure the revenue necessary for a progressive poUcy by more businesslike administration of the crown lands in America. One of Shelburne's chief advisers was Franklin, who, with several prominent associates in England and in America, was working for a new colony on the Ohio. Franklin argued that the estabhshment of such colonies would be a comparatively cheap way of defending the new territories, which might even be made a base for mUitary expeditions against the Spaniards in Cuba or Mexico. So, for a time, it looked as if British officials might cooperate with repre sentative Americans in promoting a vigorous expansionist policy. Perhaps the most tangible outcome of this discussion was the treaty of Fort Stanwix, negotiated by Sir WiUiam Johnson in 1768, by which the Iroquois opened up to white settlement a large area extending from western New York southward to eastern Kentucky. Shelburne was not long in office, however, before the American business was taken from him and given to Lord HiUsborough, who received the new office of secretary of state for the colonies. Under HiUsborough's shortsighted management, the opportunity for harmonious cooperation was thrown away. Charles Meantime, another member of the cabinet was com mitting it to an American policy directly opposed to that advocated by Pitt in 1766. This was Charles Townshend, who, like Shelburne, had presided over the Board of Trade and was interested in American problems, but had a very different point of view. Though a member of the Rocking ham ministry, Townshend had previously declared himself in favor of parliamentary taxation and close control of the colonial governments. Now, in 1767, as chancellor of the exchequer, this clever but irresponsible poUtician was sud- THE TOWNSHEND ACTS 417 denly put in a position to shape the revenue policy of the government. Since more money was needed and the country gentle- Townshend men were anxious to keep their own taxes down, Townshend Duty Act" suddenly, without consulting his coUeagues, pledged him self to find a new revenue in America. The result was the fatal Townshend Duty Act, imposing import duties payable in the colonies on tea, paper, glass, and painters' colors. In estabUshing " external duties," ParUament seemed to be keeping in mind the distinction made in 1765 by most of the American leaders; it was also following a precedent set by the Sugar Act of 1764. The preamble was, however, distinctly a chaUenge to the colonies since it declared not only that the duties were for revenue, rather than for the purpose of reg ulating commerce, but also that this revenue should be used "where it shall be found necessary" to support the pro vincial governments and in particular the courts of law. So far as this poUcy could be made to work, the Americans would stUl support their own governments; but the levying of the tax and the use to be made of the money would be determined not by the colonial assemblies, but by the Brit ish government. Unfortunately the seriousness of this issue was not generally appreciated and the biU went through without much opposition. The Duty Act was not the only chaUenge to American The new opinion. The customs service was to be stiffened; the writs sioners "of of assistance attacked by Otis in 1761 were specifically "^st0™5- approved and a new customs board was organized for America. Hardly less important as a matter of principle New York was the act suspending the legislative power of the New suspended. York assembly because it had failed to supply certain articles required for the soldiers stationed there. If a colonial legislature could be ordered to make appropriations and punished for not doing so, what became of the American doctrine that each assembly was, in its own sphere, a kind 418 THE EVE OF REVOLUTION, 1766-1774 of parliament? If ParUament could suspend one provincial legislature for a limited time, what was to prevent the same sovereign power from aboUshing such legislatures altogether? These were serious questions, to be raised in such a Ught- hearted fashion. American The ablest American critic of the Townshend Acts was DicLbson. Jomi Dickinson of Pennsylvania, who set forth his views in the Letters from a Farmer. Dickinson was a native of Penn sylvania, but received his legal training in the EngUsh "Inns of Court, " where he learned more than most Americans about the history and spirit of the common law. In characteris tic English fashion, he laid more stress on precedents than on theories of abstract right. For him the new acts of ParUa ment, including the suspension of the New York legislature, were dangerous innovations, contrary to the principles of poUtical Uberty which Englishmen had claimed for them selves and had embodied also in the government of their colonies. Dickinson did not dispute the legislative suprem acy of Parliament, nor attack the general system of the Navigation Acts. He did not even condemn the restrictions on colonial manufactures, since they were part of a large im perial poUcy. Like Pitt, however, Dickinson denied that the right to tax was a necessary part of the sovereign authority of Parliament over the colonies. He also discarded the dis tinction between external and internal taxes, so long as either was laid for the purpose of raising revenue. FinaUy he pointed out that if colonial governments could be supported without grants from their assemblies, the latter would soon cease to have any real power. Dickinson was by no means a violent radical. He tried rather to persuade EngUshmen that the new poUcies were unjust, un-EngUsh, and contrary to their own permanent interests. At the same time, he urged Americans to refrain from violent methods. They should begin with petitions and remonstrances, he said; then they could use economic pressure by refusing to buy OPPOSITION IN MASSACHUSETTS 419 British goods; only if these failed, would it be right to use force. When the Letters from a Farmer were pubUshed in London, Troubles Lord HUlsborough caUed them "extremely wild"; but he d^tts*" soon received news from Massachusetts which made Dickin son's articles seem quite tame. In that province, the short- Uved peace after the repeal of the Stamp Act had been broken by disagreeable controversies between the governor and the assembly. The Massachusetts people were, therefore, al ready irritated, when they were suddenly brought into uncomfortably close contact with Townshend 's reorganized customs service, of which Boston became the American head quarters. Influential merchants, who were used to bringing in Madeira wine without paying duties, began to find the business somewhat less safe. One such merchant was John Hancock, whose sloop Liberty was seized by the customs officials and later condemned by the admiralty court, not, however, before some of the wine had been landed and several officers roughly handled. The people who watched these proceedings with more or conserva- less active resentment were not aU of one mind. Many of Ja1^^ the weU-to-do merchants were much less interested in con stitutional theories than in preventing awkward interference with their trade. They had gone very far in stirring opposi tion to recent measures of the British government, but they were certainly not aiming at revolution. Another and more radical group, whose help the merchants sometimes found convenient, included many of the smaller business men and farmers. These people were jealous of the ruling class among their neighbors and they disliked some imperial measures which the merchants found quite satisfactory, as, for instance, restrictions on the issue of paper money. The old Puritan traditions were also much stronger with these men than with the social leaders of the seaboard towns, and this aggressive Puritan spirit had just been stirred by a renewal of the old 420 THE EVE OF REVOLUTION, 1766-1774 proposal to estabUsh AngUcan bishoprics in the colonies. Doubtless this reUgious issue helped to put most of the Con gregational ministers on the radical side in the whole polit ical controversy with the mother country; and they were quite wiUing to take their politics into the pulpit. Samuel The chief leader of the Massachusetts radicals was Samuel Adams, who first dominated the Boston town meet ing and later became the most influential member of the House of Representatives. The loyalist politician and his torian, Thomas Hutchinson, denounced Adams as a dema gogue, who as town coUector had misused public funds and was now playing recklessly on the passions of the mob. Hutchinson was deeply prejudiced, however, and his state ment can hardly be taken at its face value. Doubtless Adams was unsuccessful in business and careless in his pubUc accounts; but it is equaUy certain that most of his feUow citizens believed in his integrity and that he did not make money in politics. Even hostUe critics admitted his skUl as a political organizer, and he was successful, partly at least, because he shared the views of his foUowers. Adams's Adams 's political theories are set forth in a large number theories. °f PaPers drafted by him and adopted by the Massachusetts House under his influence. Like Dickinson, he appealed to the English constitution; but he emphasized the "natural rights" of the colonists, as weU as the doubtful theory that colonial governments rested on a compact or agreement be tween the King and the first colonists. The Massachusetts radicals still denied that they were working for independ ence; and the House of Representatives still acknowledged that Parliament was the supreme legislature of the empire. They insisted, however, that in the British Empire, as in "aU free states" there was a "fixed," if not a written, "con stitution" which "neither the supreme legislature nor the supreme executive can alter." Of aU the Massachusetts documents, the most obnoxious MASSACHUSETTS AND VIRGINIA 421 to the home government was the Circular Letter sent by The Massa- the House of Representatives to the other colonial assemblies, cS£ urging them to cooperate against the policies of the ministry. Letler- To avert this danger, Lord HUlsborough, as secretary of state for the colonies, ordered the Massachusetts House to rescind the circular; but the demand was rejected by an overwhelming majority. Thereupon Governor Bernard obeyed his instructions and dissolved the assembly. The other assemblies answered Massachusetts with sympa thetic resolutions, which were backed up by more or less effective nonimportation agreements against British goods. The most important provincial resolutions of this period The Vir- were the "Virginia Resolves" of 1769, introduced by George fXesfiW Washington, now a prosperous planter and by no means a radical democrat. Even he, however, was now writing impatiently about "our lordly masters in Great Britain" and proposing to boycott British trade and manufactures. In the last resort he thought an appeal to arms would be justifiable. One measure especiaUy attacked by the Virginians was New the joint address of the two houses of Parliament asking the measures. King to apply in the colonies an old statute of Henry VIII, authorizing the trial in England of persons who had com mitted crimes outside of the "realm." This proposal was aimed chiefly at the Massachusetts leaders, who were held responsible for the rebeUious attitude of that colony. Another measure, not altogether unnatural in view of the violent resistance offered to the commissioners of customs, was the sending of two regiments of British regulars from Halifax to Boston. It was equaUy natural, however, that the presence of these redcoats should be resented by the Bostonians and that the rougher elements should go farther in expressing their dislike than the more cautious leaders. Out of this strained situation came the so-called "Boston "Boston Massacre- Massacre" of March 5, 1770, when some soldiers, under 422 THE EVE OF REVOLUTION, 1766-1774 Effects of colonialopposition. Reorganization of the British ministry. Lord North. considerable provocation, fired on their assaflants and kUled four of the citizens. Samuel Adams now came to the front again and with the Boston populace behind him forced the governor to transfer the soldiers to Castle WUliam, outside the town. A more difficult but highly creditable stand was taken by John Adams, who helped to prevent injustice by acting as legal counsel for the British officer in command and securing his acquittal on the charge of murder. The methods used against the Townshend duties were like those which had proved successful against the Stamp Act. Again there was a steady flow of pamphlets and resolutions; the commercial boycotts cut down imports from England; and again there were numerous acts of violence. Once more, too, colonial opposition, combined with other forces, brought a partial reversal of policy. It happened just then that business conditions in England lessened somewhat the damage done by the American boycotts; but English politicians and business men realized that the Townshend duties were working against the very interests which the old commercial system was intended to promote. Meantime, British poUtics had changed in some re spects for the worse since 1766. After an unusuaUy corrupt and disorderly campaign, a new Parliament was elected in 1768. Franklin, who watched the poUtical game with much interest, thought the prospect for any statesmanlike handling of American affairs was very black. By 1769 there were radical changes in the ministry. Chatham and Shelburne were now out and politicians less sympathetic with America were gaining strength, including the "King's Friends," or court party, and the "Bloomsbury gang," or Bedford faction. The latter were especiaUy sharp in their criticism of the Americans and the King himseff now took a similar attitude. The man who was coming to the front in these cabinet changes was Lord North, who THE "PREAMBULARY TAX" 423 succeeded Townshend as Chancellor of the Exchequer and finally in 1770 became prime minister. North was an able parUamentary leader and was personaUy more liberal than some of his associates; his worst fault was that he yielded to the King's desires to an extent quite inconsist ent with his duty as a responsible minister. So it came about that his name is linked with that of George III in the measures which finaUy spUt the old empire in two. North realized that the Townshend Duty Act was Townshend costing more than it brought into the treasury and was doned except also unsound as a commercial measure, since it imposed on tea- duties on British manufactures. Accordingly it was de cided to repeal aU these duties except that on tea, about which George III later said that there must "always be one tax to keep up the right. " With the tea duty there remained the offensive preamble declaring it expedient to raise a revenue in America. In the end this "preambulary tax," as Burke contemptuously called it, proved disastrous; but for the present no such outcome was in sight. In fact, many of the merchants lost their enthusiasm for continued opposition and in one colony after another the nonimportation agreements were relaxed. So far as tea was concerned, the matter was not of much practical im portance, since large quantities were smuggled in from HoUand. It looked, therefore, as if the storm might blow over. The responsibUity for renewing the controversy rested Controversy about equally with the extremists on both sides. The extremists. radicals did what they could to keep the fires burning, and on the other side there were tactless officials who played into the hands of their opponents by inconsiderate acts or too much talking. In Massachusetts these two elements are best represented by Samuel Adams and Thomas Hutch inson, who usuaUy managed between them to set the poUt ical pot boUing whenever it showed any signs of cooling off. 424 THE EVE OF REVOLUTION, 1766-1774 Governor Hutchinson, who became governor in 1770, belonged Hutc inson. tQ an Qj^ Massachusetts family and had served many years in the legislature, where he did some exceUent work, especiaUy in helping to put the Massachusetts currency on a sound basis. He was also a real scholar, as may be seen in his History of Massachusetts Bay. Hutchinson did not approve of the Stamp Act but he disliked the radical lead ers and, Uke many other weU-to-do people, regarded the connection with the mother country as a valuable conserv ative influence. This conservative spirit was naturaUy strengthened by his career as an officeholder under the Crown, — as chief justice, lieutenant governor, and gov ernor. So he became more and more a defender of the imperial government against colonial opposition. Un fortunately for him, he was quite overmatched as a poU- tician by the opposition leaders, especiaUy by Samuel Adams, who was quick to take advantage of the governor's mistakes. Hutchinson was not long in office before he got into a series of debates on the sovereignty of ParUament. The radical leaders were glad of the chance to publish their views, and so popular feeling, which had seemed to be quieting down, was again stirred up. In the heat of con troversy each side naturaUy became more aggressive; and moderate men were graduaUy, often reluctantly, forced to take sides with one set of extremists or the other. In the neighboring colony of Rhode Island there was no royal governor, but here too there were imperial officials, — customs coUectors, naval commanders, and an admiralty court, — aU trying to see that duties were coUected and the Navigation Acts enforced. These royal agents were worse off in Rhode Island than in Massachusetts because the colony government was entirely in the hands of elective officers, whose cooperation in enforcing unpopular measures The Gaspee could not be expected. Even acts of violence could not be prevented or punished. When, for instance, a mob de- RADICAL AGITATION 425 stroyed the Gaspee, a royal vessel employed in the revenue service, no responsible person would inform against the of fenders. The Gaspee affair and certain proposals made by the British authorities in this connection, including the transportation of suspected persons to England for trial, had a marked effect outside of Rhode Island and stimulated the radical party to more effective organization. In 1772 Samuel Adams organized for Massachusetts an elaborate Committees system of town "Committees of Correspondence," which respondence. served to keep the radicals in touch with each other, and in 1773 the Virginians took the initiative in a stUl more important movement. In Virginia, as in New England, friction had developed Unrest in in many different ways. Even in the Old Dominion, Vireinia. the proposal of a colonial bishop was warmly debated by the House of Burgesses, which passed a resolution against it. There were economic issues, also, such as the perennial friction between the planters and their British creditors, which were made more acute by a period of " hard times." The Virginia planters also took a keen interest in strictly constitutional matters and in safeguarding colonial self- government against imperialistic and centralizing tendencies. Thus the spirit of discontent was fairly general. Under these circumstances some of the younger Virginians, including Virginia Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, and Thomas Jefferson, ra ** s- decided, as Jefferson wrote many years later, that the older members were not "up to the point of forwardness and zeal which the times required." This radical group now per suaded the House of Burgesses to appoint a provincial committee of correspondence to keep in touch with simUar committees in other provinces. The Virginia plan was heartily approved by radicals elsewhere and was gradually adopted in other colonies. Notwithstanding aU this organized agitation, the radi- Conservative cals were for a time disappointed with the results. Many of 1773. 426 THE EVE OF REVOLUTION, 1766-1774 of the "best people" held themselves aloof; they could get tea from smugglers and they were tired of denying them selves conveniences or losing business profits in order to protest against the tea duty. The wealthier merchants, especiaUy, now realized that when the populace had once been stirred up to violent measures, it could not easUy be kept in hand. Again, however, the radicals received val uable assistance from the home government. In May, 1773, Parliament passed a new measure which for the time being brought radicals and moderates together. The Tea Act The Tea Act of 1773 had two principal objects. The first was to help the East India Company, which controlled the Asiatic tea trade and was then financially embarrassed, by giving it a larger market in the colonies. This object was to be accomplished, without lowering the duty paid in America, by refunding to the company aU import duties collected in England on teas which were afterwards shipped to the colonies. The company was also given the new priv- Uege of engaging directly in the American tea trade, through its own agencies. The American consumer could now buy tea at a price lower than that charged in England, and the company could compete successf uUy in the American market not only with the private merchants who had previously carried on the business but even with the dealers in smuggled tea. The other object of the act was, of course, to accustom the colonists to paying the duty, even though the amount collected was almost negligible. Colonial The action of Parliament on the tea duty soon brought together in opposition some of the most influential elements in American society. The private merchants and even the smugglers feared the competition of a powerful corporate monopoly, while leaders like Samuel Adams were deter mined to resist this new effort to establish the taxing power of Parliament. So when the East India Company's ships arrived in American ports, they found a formidable resistance. COERCIVE ACTS OF 1774 427 combination organized against them. Once more men of large interests and social prominence were working with radicals who had no such interests at stake, and much less respect for vested rights. The measures adopted varied according to local conditions. In New York and PhUadel phia the masters of tea ships were persuaded to turn back without unloading the tea. At Charleston cargoes were landed only to repose harmlessly in the government ware house. In Boston the proceedings were more spectacular because the tea ships, having once entered the harbor, were held there by Governor Hutchinson's refusal to issue clear- Boston ance papers for their return. The result was the famous Tea Party" Boston Tea Party, in which the objectionable cargoes were thrown into the sea. In these various ways the opposition leaders accomplished the same essential object of prevent ing the sale of the company's tea; but in England the Boston proceedings, with their wholesale destruction of property, naturaUy attracted special attention. To moderate Englishmen, and even to a man like Frank- Coercive Un, who kept in touch with English public opinion, the actso I?74" Boston Tea Party seemed a serious blunder. The whole proceeding was not only a deliberate defiance of ParUament, the most powerful legislature in the world; it showed also reckless disregard of property rights. "I suppose," said Franklin, "we never had, since we were a people, so few friends in Britain." When the news reached London, about the end of January, the ministry decided to take drastic action. Early in March the King reported to Parliament the "unwarrantable practices" in America and more particularly "the violent and outrageous proceedings" in Boston. The speech was foUowed by a series of coercive biUs which were pushed through Parliament rapidly and by large majorities. The first of the coercive acts was the Boston Port Bill, closing that port to commerce until Boston Port the Bostonians should compensate the owners of the tea 428 THE EVE OF REVOLUTION, 1766-1774 and give assurance of future good behavior; this was a punitive measure pure and simple. Another law, the Massa chusetts Government Act, raised a more serious issue, since it made permanent changes in the constitution of a chartered colony. Massachu- The idea of reconstructing the chartered colonies, so as mentGAct!m" to bring them more completely under royal control, had been discussed for a hundred years; but most of the older Whig leaders hesitated about carrying the poUcy to its logical conclusion. Now, however, the feeling against the New Englanders was so intense that even the most extreme measures could be carried through. Some of the Uberals tried to stem the tide, notably Edmund Burke, who de clared that the ministry had been thinking too much about theories of sovereignty and not enough about the best way to secure harmonious cooperation. Under the old system Parliament had regulated colonial trade but had refrained from taxing the Americans. Why should this poUcy, under which the empire had prospered, be changed to satisfy a theory which, whether right or wrong, was bound to cause serious friction? It is doubtful whether this negative poUcy was reaUy adequate; at any rate, it was too tame for the politicians who controUed ParUament. So, in direct con travention of the royal charter, the government of Massa chusetts was radically changed. CouncUors were not to be elected, but appointed by the King; judges were brought more fuUy under the control of the governor; and juries were no longer to be elected by the people but chosen by the sheriffs. The town meetings, which had been resolving freely on imperial problems, were to be kept strictly to local business, transacted, except by special permission of the governor, only at certain fixed times. To the Massachu setts theory that "in all free states the constitution is fixed" the answer was now given that the Massachusetts con stitution was what Parliament chose to make it. THE QUEBEC ACT 429 So far as constitutional principles were concerned, the other Massachusetts Government Act was the most important of me^es. the coercive measures. Two other acts intended to strengthen the government in its dealings with the rebel lious colonists were the Act for the Impartial Administra tion of Justice and a new Quartering Act. The former law enabled royal officials, who thought they could not get a fair trial on charges brought against them in the courts of any colony, to transfer their cases either to some other colony or to England. Probably this was not unreasonable in a time of so much excitement; but two years later the Declaration of Independence asserted that its purpose was to protect lawless officials by "mock" trials. Quite different from these coercive acts, though gen- The Quebec erally associated with them, was the Quebec Act, whose feltiires! ™ main object was to correct certain defects in the government of that province which had developed since its organization under the Proclamation of 1763. Evidently a colony in habited mostly by Frenchmen could not be governed on strictly EngUsh lines. It did not seem practicable, for instance, to instaU at once a system of representative gov ernment among people who had never been accustomed to anything of the kind. Again, the treaty by which the Brit ish acquired Canada promised that the religious and legal institutions of the French settlers should be respected, and it seemed desirable that these pledges should be carried out by legislation, not only as a matter of justice but in order to secure the loyalty of the Canadian population. For the present, therefore, Quebec was to be governed without a representative assembly; English law was to apply in criminal cases, but in civU cases the old French customs were continued, including the trial of such cases without a jury; the customary rights of the Catholic clergy were recognized, including that of coUecting tithes. So far as the Canadian population was concerned, these were the important matters. 430 THE EVE OF REVOLUTION, 1766-1774 Objections During the debate on this bffl, there was some sharp Quebec Act. criticism. Ministers were accused of setting up an arbi trary government, depriving Englishmen of trial by jury, and being too Uberal with the CathoUcs. These objections were also urged in America, but the chief grievance of the English colonists was that the boundaries of Quebec were extended south and west to the Ohio and the Mississippi, thus including a region covered by several of the old sea- TheWest. to-sea charters, in which traders, land speculators, and colony promoters were keenly interested. Some Americans looked for the extension of the existing colonies westward; others, with some encouragement from the British minis try, planned to establish new colonies. Treaties had also been made with the Indians opening up new lands for settle ment. Now this land of promise was annexed to a province inhabited mainly by aliens and governed on principles radically different from those prevailing in the older Eng lish commonwealths. As a measure for the government of Canada, the law was on the whole just and fair; but Ameri cans generally saw in it only one more example of un reasonable opposition to the westward expansion of their settlements and their free institutions. Franklin and The same ministry which put through the coercive son letters. " acts also alienated the most statesmanlike representative of American pubUc opinion in England. Benjamin Frank lin was an effective colonial agent, but he was quite capable of rising above provincial prejudices. As deputy post master-general for the colonies, he held office under the Crown and was on friendly terms with some of the leadmg ministers. It became known, however, that he had secured and sent back to Massachusetts private letters written from that province by Governor Hutchinson and other loyaUst leaders. The ideas expressed by Hutchinson in these letters were partly those which he had stated pub licly; the point most emphasized was the need of vigorous RESISTANCE IN MASSACHUSETTS 431 measures to curb the radical element. Having received the correspondence, the Massachusetts leaders proceeded to pubhsh it for the purpose of breaking down Hutchinson's influence. Franklin was sharply criticized for such use of this correspondence and, on January 29, 1774, when he appeared before a committee of the Privy CouncU to urge Hutchinson's removal from office, he was savagely attacked by Solicitor-General Wedderburn. This meeting was largely attended by councUors and others, who, as Franklin grimly remarked, seemed "to enjoy highly the entertainment," Franklin frequently breaking out in loud applause. This humUiating disciPlilied- experience was immediately foUowed by Franklin's dismissal from the postal service. His conduct was not above criti cism, but the attack upon him went beyond the bounds of decency and proved a serious blunder. By the summer of 1774, the new ministerial policies Resistance were being inaugurated in Massachusetts. In place of c^u^a^a" Hutchinson, who now saUed for England, the governorship was given to a mUitary man, General Gage, who had been for some time the commander in chief of the British regu lars in America. The Boston Port BUI was no idle threat but a stern reality and presently there came royal commis sions for the new "mandamus councUors," marking the end of the old constitution. Meantime, the radical leaders had gone too far to draw back and soon took up the chal lenge, declaring that the new government was founded on a plain usurpation of power by Parliament. Under the leadership of Boston, the towns of Suffolk County worked out a plan of resistance, which was summed up in The Suffolk the "Suffolk Resolves" of September, 1774. The "man- ResoIves- damus councUors" were set aside and those who were not already frightened into resigning were warned to do so at once. Sheriffs and other officers were told to ignore the judges appointed under the new law, and town coUectors were advised to hold back taxes from the provincial treasury. 432 THE EVE OF REVOLUTION, 1 766-1 774 A provincial congress was elected as the central agency for this organized resistance and plans were set on foot for a popular mUitia independent of the governor. So, over against Gage's estabUshment in Boston, a new government was graduaUy taking shape, quite irregular, no doubt, but no more so, according to the popular leaders, than the rival organization. The success of this experiment in revolutionary gov ernment depended largely on the attitude of the other colonies; and that was stiff uncertain. Sympathy for the hardships of Boston was widespread; but many moderate people thought Massachusetts had been overradical. The Puritan traditions of New England and its supposed "lev eling spirit" were not popular with the merchants and gentry of New York, who feared that a break with England would mean civfl war among themselves. In Pennsylvania, the old Quaker ruling class, though ready at times to defend its own rights, was afraid of violent methods. The Penn sylvania conservatives were ably led by Joseph GaUoway, then speaker of the House of Representatives; even Dick inson, the writer of the Farmer's Letters, feared that Massa chusetts had gone too far. Even in the middle colonies, however, the radicals were gaining ground. In Pennsyl vania, for instance, the workmen and small traders of PhU adelphia were combining with the back-country people to demand a larger share in the provincial government as weU as more decided opposition to the poUcies of the British ministry. These radical elements now organized local com mittees and a provincial convention which, though with out any legal authority, could bring pressure to bear upon the more conservative members of the regular assembly. WhUe the middle colonies wavered, the radicals were encouraged by the attitude of Virginia, which had somewhat more prestige than the New England group. Here too there were radicals and conservatives; but the two ele- THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS 433 ments were less irreconcUable than in Massachusetts and among the "Whigs" there were many substantial land owners. So it came about that in May, 1774, the Virginia burgesses agreed to caU a provincial congress, which in turn was to choose delegates to a "Continental Congress," for the purpose of taking counsel with the "Whigs" in other colonies. These Virginia delegates were a strong and repre sentative group. Radical agitators, Uke Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee, were included; but Washington was also among them and the delegation was headed by Peyton Randolph, one of the "old guard" whose power Henry and his friends had been trying to curb. One colony after another feU in line and in September, 1774, when the Congress assembled in Carpenter's HaU, PhUadelphia, every colony except Georgia was represented. The delegates were chosen in various ways, sometimes by colonial assemblies, some times by unofficial conventions, and sometimes by local authorities. It is quite misleading, however, to speak of these people as irresponsible and impecunious agitators. Many were prosperous merchants and landowners; in the elegant mansions of some of the PhUadelphia Whigs, visit ing delegates were entertained with "sinful" feasts, which John Adams describes with evident pleasure. The members of this truly "continental" assembly The problem could see, as few of them had seen before, the varied elements ^n^" ua of which America was composed. Anglicans and Puritans, standing. Quakers, and even the much-distrusted Catholics, all saw the necessity of mutual understanding and cooperation. John Adams, who was a conscientious churchgoer, visited Moravian, Methodist, and Baptist meetings and was im pressed by the stately services of the Roman Church. His "old Puritan" cousin, Samuel Adams, was less Uberal, but he too could sometimes sacrifice his prejudices, as when he proposed that an Episcopal clergyman should offer prayer before the Congress. 434 THE EVE OF REVOLUTION, 1766-1774 Radical and conservativeparties. Gallowayand his plan of union. The Decla ration and Resolves. Compromises. Not only were there old prejudices to be removed; there were also sharp differences of opinion on current issues. Sherman of Connecticut denied altogether the legislative authority of Parliament. According to Patrick Henry, the old governments were already dissolved and the Congress should work out a new system. Alarmed by such radical ideas, the conservatives felt the necessity of offering some constructive plan. Their chief spokesman was Joseph Galloway of Pennsylvania, who with the support of some New York and South Carolina delegates, proposed a kind of imperial constitution, estabUshing a general legislative authority which could regulate American affairs without violating the principles of EngUsh Uberty as commonly understood in America. This authority he proposed to divide between ParUament and an American legislature consisting of representatives from the colonial assembUes, the consent of both these bodies being required for imperial legislation affecting America. In time of war the American legislature could levy taxes independently. The GaUoway plan, which was somewhat simUar to the Albany plan of 1754, was supported not only by loyalists, or Tories, but by men Uke John Jay and Edward Rutledge, who afterwards worked for American independence. The radicals were able, however, to discredit the proposal as a loyahst scheme to prevent effective action in defense of American interests. Gradually differences of opinion were overcome and a substantial majority of the delegates met on common ground. The New England radicals gained a clear victory when Congress approved the revolutionary program set forth in the Suffolk Resolves. In discussing the basis of Ameri can rights, some emphasized "natural rights," whUe others regarded the EngUsh constitution and the colonial charters as more important. On these and simUar questions com promise was necessary; in the "Declaration and Resolves" THE "CONTINENTAL ASSOCIATION" 435 as finaUy adopted, "natural rights," the British constitution, and the charters were aU given a place. As to the theory of parliamentary sovereignty, the delegates were of different minds; but the Congress, while denying the right of Par Uament to tax the colonies, made no objection to laws which were clearly limited to the regulation of commerce. Some questions were also avoided by limiting the Ust of grievances to those which had arisen since 1763. More important than this statement of principles was The"Con- the plan for carrying them into effect. In general this was sodation.'^S' the old method of boycotting English trade and manufac tures. By the "Continental Association" the delegates bound themselves and, so far as possible, their constituents not to import or use British goods or other articles on which duties had been levied. The slave trade was to be discontinued and, unless Parliament came to terms within a year, exports to the British Isles and the West Indies were also to be stopped. Experience showed the difficulty of enforcing such boycotts, and Congress, therefore, recommended an elaborate machin ery of provincial and local committees, chosen by the people, to watch over suspicious persons and make life hard for those who refused to conform. Out of this network of committees there graduaUy developed something like a revolutionary government, often better able to enforce its wiU than the regularly constituted authorities. The idea of a central assembly to coordinate aU these local agencies was kept aUve by caUing a second Continental Congress to meet in May, 1775. Thus the coercive acts, instead of restoring law and order in the colonies, produced exactly the opposite result and played directly into the hands of the radicals. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES Becker, Eve of the American Revolution, 115-220. Channing, General United States, III, chs. IV-V. Fisher, Struggle for American In- 436 THE EVE OF REVOLUTION. 1766-1774 Collectedsources. Englishpolitics. Englishsources. TheAmericanopposition. Americansources. Western problems. dependence, I, chs. LX-XX. Frothingham, R., Rise of the Repub lic, chs. VI-IX (Frothingham and Bancroft reflect older views). Howard, Preliminaries, chs. X-XVI. Lecky, England in the Eighteenth Century, III, 344-447 (or his American Resolution). Trevelyan, G. O., American Revolution, I, chs. I-V (Uberal Eng Ush view). Macdonald, Select Charters, nos. 61, 64-73. Hart, Con temporaries, II, ch. XXIV, and no. 153. CaUender, Selections from Economic History of the U. S., 148-159. Fitzmaurice, Shelburne, II, ch. I. RuviUe, A. von, Pitt, III, chs. IX-XII. Wilhams, B., Chatham, ch. XXII. DetaUed dis cussion in Alvord, Mississippi Valley in British Politics. Burke's speech on American Taxation, April, 1774, in Works (also in various other texts). Cobbett's Parliamentary History, XVTI (debates on coercive acts of 1774). George III, Corre spondence with Lord North. Knox, W., Controversy between Great Britain and Her Colonies Reviewed (1769). Henry, Patrick Henry, I, chs. VL-X. Tyler, Patrick Henry, chs. VH-Vni. Hosmer, J. K., S. Adams, 81-289 (extended biography by W. V. WeUs). Lincoln, C. H., Revolutionary Move ment in Pennsylvania, chs. VIII-X. McCrady, South Carolina, 1719-1776, chs. XXX-XXXLX. Stifle, C. J., John Dickinson, 79-149. Hosmer, J. K., Thomas Hutchinson (representative loyalist). Schlesinger, Colonial Merchants and the American Revo lution {Columbia Studies), chs. III-X. Dickinson, J., Letters of a Farmer in Writings (Penn, Hist. Soc, Memoirs, XIV). FrankUn, Writings (Smyth edition), V, VI. Hutchinson, T., Massachusetts, III, ch. Ill (loyalist view). Jefferson, T., Writings (Ford edition), I (including auto biography). For Continental Congress, see Journals, I (Library of Congress edition); and Adams, J., Works, II, 340-402 (auto biography and notes). Alvord, Centennial History of Illinois, I, ch. XIV. CHAPTER XJX REVOLUTION, 1774 TO 1776 In England a few friends of the colonies, including EngUsh Chatham, were impressed by the ability and self-control °P!mon- shown in the published statements of the Continental Congress. Another group, made up largely of merchants and manufacturers, was anxious about the effect of the "Association" on business. During the summer there had even been some talk of a change in the ministry which might bring in a more liberal element and so make possible a different American poUcy, perhaps some "great constitu tional charter to be confirmed by King, Lords, and Com mons." Unfortunately the new parliamentary elections strengthened those elements which foUowed the ministry and had Uttle sympathy for the American point of view. Not only were the liberals in a minority; they were also Conciliatory unable to agree on a constructive poUcy. The "Old Whig" B^e^and view, best expressed by Burke, was to put Anglo-American Chatham. relations back where they were before 1763. This could be done by repeahng the coercive acts and leaving the taxing power with the separate colonial assembUes; also there should be as little talk as possible about legal theories of Parliamentary sovereignty. Chatham favored a constitu tional agreement denning both the rights of Parliament and those of the colonies. The colonies, he thought, should acknowledge their dependence on the "imperial crown of Great Britain" and the supreme legislative authority of Par Uament. In return for this acknowledgment, Parliament should expressly renounce any authority to tax the colonies. 437 438 REVOLUTION, 1774-1776 New meas ures of coercion. North's "Concilia tory Propo sition." Instead of treating the Continental Congress as a group of rebels, Chatham accepted it as a fair representation of American opinion, entitled to join with Parliament as a party to this proposed agreement. The American Whigs were not quite satisfied with this plan, but they were wUling to accept it as a basis for discussion. The ministry, however, regarded it as impossible and it was rejected in the House of Lords by a vote of nearly two to one. Among the ministers, even, there were differences of opinion. They had to take into account the British trading interests which might be injured by a purely repressive poUcy. In London, large meetings were held by merchants who had business interests in the continental colonies, and petitions were sent to ParUament from the leading com mercial and manufacturing centers asking the government to reconsider its American policy. Nevertheless, the King and the factions which supported him were determined not to yield. Some merchants also beUeved that they would gain more in the end by the enforcement of parUamentary authority than by an immediate reopening of trade through concessions which later might be awkward. So the appeals of the Continental Congress were rejected and the poUcy of coercion was continued. The New England Restraining Act restricted stiU further the trade of that section and votes were taken for increasing the mUitary and naval forces in America. The only offset to the coercive policy was the "Conciliatory Proposition" of Lord North, offering to exempt from parliamentary taxes any colony whose assembly would guarantee a definite sum for imperial purposes. Whatever its purpose may have been, this proposal proved futffe. The Americans and their EngUsh sympathizers generaUy regarded it as a trick to divide the colonies; but before the latter had time to act on it, war began at Lexington and Concord. Though the serious fighting began in Massachusetts, REVOLUTIONARY METHODS 439 simUar conditions existed elsewhere. From New Hampshire Enforcing to Georgia, the radicals organized committees to enforce ^continental the "Continental Association." These committees had no Association." legal authority, but they had more real power than many of the regular governments. Those who violated the "non importation" and "nonconsumption" agreements were punished by social ostracism, by trade boycotts, and by physical violence. In order that the colonies might be more independent economicaUy, home industries were en couraged and people were urged to produce more wool for domestic manufactures. More ominous stUl was the atten tion given to mUitary preparations. Munitions were col lected, plans were made for a larger production of them, and independent mUitary companies were formed. Virginia Ulustrates admirably the way in which revo- Revolution- lutionary methods were undermining the regular provin- myv^m^.ds cial governments. In the summer of 1774 the Virginians, especiaUy the frontiersmen and others who were interested in western lands, were much occupied with Indian affairs. The movement of new settlers into the Ohio valley had brought on a new conflict with the Indians, generaUy known as Lord Dunmore's War, which for a time brought governor and people together in defense of their common interests. But the Indians were soon defeated and the men who fought the victorious campaign emerged from the wUderness with ideas quite different from those of their governor. Even a disagreeable boundary controversy between Pennsylvania and Virginia did not prevent the radicals in both colonies from working together. By the end of 1774, Dunmore had to report that his authority had almost disappeared. The courts could not transact business and mUitia companies were taking orders not from him but from revolutionary committees. In the following spring, these military prepa rations, in which Washington took an active part, were vigorously pushed and Virginia came near having an armed 44© REVOLUTION, 1774-1776 encounter between the governor and the colonial volunteers simUar to that which actuaUy occurred about the same time in Massachusetts. The loyalists. Meantime, the Whigs were confronted in every colony by a more or less influential "loyaUst," or Tory, element, which felt that the Continental Congress and the various revolutionary committees had gone dangerously far. These men were not aU thick-and-thin defenders of the British government. Some of them had not only criticized the Stamp Act and other revenue measures but had done what they could to secure their repeal. Now, however, it seemed to them that Whig measures were leading directly to dis ruption of the empire. AU this they dreaded not merely because they were loyal to the King and the mother country, but because they needed the help of the home government to protect them against aggressively democratic neighbors. Besides the out-and-out loyaUsts, there were many others who disliked Whig methods and shrank from the idea of armed conflict. To a certain extent and in a negative way, such men cooperated with the real loyaUsts; but in general they tried to steer a safe middle course. Such people were not willing to make sacrifices for the loyaUst cause and were often intimidated by their radical neighbors. Social factors The loyaUsts did not belong to any one class in society, £arty.°ya S though they were most numerous among the naturaUy conservative people of wealth, social standing, and education. In Massachusetts, for instance, the old office-holding class, and many of the leading merchants, the AngUcan clergy, and the coUege graduates were loyaUsts. In New York and PhUadelphia, many of the merchants took a simUar stand. The loyalists counted on the conservatism of the old Quaker famUies and strong resolutions were passed by the Quaker meetings against violent resistance to the civil authorities. In Virginia, moderates and radicals worked together better than in most colonies and thus checked LOYALISTS AND WHIGS 44 1 the development of the loyalist party except among the Scotch and other merchants. Farther south, in the Carolinas and Georgia* the Tories were numerous and active. The loyalists laid much stress on the hardships The loyalist resultmg from the "Association." Some kinds of legitimate "8ument- business undoubtedly suffered and poor people complained of the high prices which they had to pay because "nonim portation" cut down the avaUable supply of goods. The local committees were also accused of showing favoritism, making concessions to influential people whUe others were held up more strictly. Much was made of the undoubted fact that loyaUsts were not aUowed to write or speak their opinions; from their point of view Whig interference with personal liberty was more serious than that of the British government. The net result, then, of the Continental Congress and Transfer of the program carried out in accordance with its directions °0 r°voki- by the local committees, was to bring about a clearer align- tionary or- ¦' . gamzations. ment between radicals and conservatives, — between the old provincial governments which rested on royal authority and the more or less revolutionary organizations which were graduaUy getting the real power. Evidently this state of things could not go on indefinitely. The radicals could not easUy draw back and some of them were now ready to secede from the empire. For various reasons the crisis was first reached in Massa- The out- chusetts, which was most directly affected by the coercive Massachu- acts. From the Whig point of view, Parliament itself had setts- inaugurated a revolution by arbitrarUy destroying the old provincial constitution. The opponents of General Gage argued with some show of reason, that they, rather than he, were standing for the "good old ways." The Massachu setts Whigs also had a group of skUfful leaders who knew just what they wanted and had developed an unusually effective organization. By the beginning of 1775 mUitary 442 REVOLUTION, 1774-1776 Lexingtonand Concord. The ques tion of cooperation. The second Continental preparations were weU advanced on both sides. "Minute- men" were driUing and munitions were being gathered; but each side preferred to put on the other the responsibUity for striking the first blow. Gage's government in Boston was getting to be little more than a besieged garrison and he could hardly afford to let matters drift much longer. So it came about that on AprU 19, 1775, a few British regulars, sent to seize mUitary supplies accumulated at Concord by the revolutionary government, clashed with a handful of mUitiamen on Lexington Common, marched on to Concord, where they met more serious resistance from the "em battled farmers," and finaUy had to make a humiUating retreat back to Boston. So far, the conflict was primarUy a Massachusetts affair. Already, however, there was a general understanding be tween the Massachusetts Whigs and their neighbors in the other New England colonies. Within a few weeks of the affair at Lexington and Concord, all the colonies of this group were represented in the numerous, but poorly organ ized and equipped, army which had assembled at Cambridge, only a few mUes from Gage's headquarters in Boston. This cooperation of the New England colonies was, of course, only the first step; the enterprise could not possibly succeed without active support from the middle and south ern provinces. Whether that support was to be given was the great question to be decided by the Second Continental Congress in May, 1775. The new Congress, like its predecessor of 1774, included men of various opinions, — radical, moderate, and conserv ative. The conservatives were, however, much weaker than before and they had no such aggressive leader as Joseph GaUoway. The radicals were correspondingly stronger, but they had to move slowly in order to keep in touch with their more cautious associates. Hancock of Massachusetts was chosen president, and radicals and Geokge Washington WASHINGTON 443 moderates agreed that Congress should assume responsibU ity for the army in Cambridge, of which Washington was presently made commander in chief. Even cautious people like Dickinson believed there were good EngUsh precedents for mUitary resistance to unconstitutional measures. The choice of Washington as commander in chief was Washington a notable event. He was selected partly because he was a master in Virginian, but also because none of the other Whig leaders chie£- had any general reputation as a soldier. Even Washington had never commanded more than a few hundred men nor seen a battle between two disciplined armies. Fortunately the technical preparation which he lacked was not indis pensable. There was no battle of the Revolutionary War in which either side had more than a few thousand men, and the commanders in chief on the other side were second-rate. The quaUties most needed, Washington had in extraordinary measure: capacity for leadership, persistent courage during long periods of defeat and general discouragement, sturdy common sense, and a personal character which, in spite of some jealousy and even disloyalty in Congress and in the army, won for him the confidence of the people whom he served. The war in which Washington now engaged was not The Ameri- conceived by him or most of his comrades as a struggle for j^^86 national independence; it was hardly even a revolt against the King, but rather armed resistance to the group of minis ters then advising the King and guiding Parliament. Dur ing the early months of the war, Washington referred to the British army as the "ministerial troops" and Americans were still appealing from the King "badly advised" to the King "better advised." Yet every month made more difficult this attempt to reconcUe a theoretical loyalty to the King with the actual fact of armed resistance to his agents in America. The British government was now preparing for a real 444 REVOLUTION, 1774-1776 British war. This took time, however, and for about a year no im- preparations. p0rtant offensive movement was undertaken by the British. Great Britain had no large standing army and even in the Seven Years' War had never caUed more than a smaU fraction of her able-bodied men into mUitary service; she depended rather on her navy and the wealth which enabled her to subsidize her European allies. Even now, in a conflict with his own subjects, the head of a great world power felt obhged to make up for the lack of English recruits by buying soldiers from the Landgrave of Hesse and other minor German princes. The British government also counted heavffy on the American loyaUsts, and to a less extent on Indian aUies, who had been attached to the British cause by skillful agents like the Johnson famffy in New York, and Stuart, the superintendent of Indian affairs in the South. Both the loyalists and the Indians were disappointing. Though the loyaUsts were numerous, the superior aggressive ness and organizing abUity of the Whig element prevented them from getting effectively together. The Indians could do a good deal of damage by raiding frontier settlements, but could not be relied on in a complicated campaign. Bunker Hill The mUitary history of the year which began with Wash- of Boston, ington's appointment may be briefly told. First came the battle of Bunker HU1, fought before Washington's arrival by New England volunteers, who had tried to make the British position in Boston untenable by fortifying certain heights in the neighboring vUlage of Charlestown. In this battle the colonials twice repulsed the advancing British under General Howe, but were defeated in the third attack, after their ammunition was exhausted. They had, however, inflicted heavy losses on the enemy and shown that they could use both spade and rifle to good advantage. During the next few months there was not much change in the situation. The British and their loyalist supporters were cooped up in Boston whUe the revolutionary party was WASIHNGTON'S ARMY 445 terrorizing the Tories outside of the British lines and per fecting its organization. In the autumn Gage gave up his unpleasant task and saUed home. A few months later, Washington's fortification of Dorchester Heights made Howe's position so precarious that he decided to leave Evacuation Boston, taking with him more than a thousand loyaUsts. of Boston- Within a year after Gage's unlucky expedition to Concord, royal authority had practically disappeared in New Eng- ' land. American success up to this point was due largely to Washing- British incompetence rather than to American efficiency. tons army" To a man of soldierly instincts and training, the army at Cambridge was discouraging. During the summer of 1775 several thousand New England volunteers came in; there were also some riflemen recruited from the frontier districts of Pennsylvania and the South, of whom the best known were the Virginians under the capable Daniel Morgan. New England ideas about discipline were free and easy, and mistaken notions of democracy prevented officers from get ting proper respect from their men. Stern discipline was sometimes necessary under these circumstances and Wash ington was not afraid to apply it, to officers as weU as men. Munitions and other equipment were also quite insufficient. Much of Washington's trouble came from the fact that the Congress and civUian chiefs of the insurgent government in PhUadelphia e army' also had pioneer work to do in organizing a central war office. There were good men engaged on this task — John Adams of Massachusetts, Sherman of Connecticut, WUson of Penn sylvania, and Rutledge of South Carolina; but they were quite inexperienced in such matters. AU things considered, they probably did as weU as could reasonably be expected. With this hastily improvised organization, Congress o^er undertook at the end of 1775 a new and difficult offensive colonies. movement against the British forces in Canada. So far the revolutionary spirit had been almost wholly limited to the 446 REVOLUTION, 1774-1776 Canada and the Revolu tion. The Canadian campaign of I775-I776- "old thirteen" colonies. The British West Indies grumbled somewhat about parUamentary taxation; but for them resistance to British sea power was almost inconceivable. In the new provinces of East and West Florida, British and colonial land speculators were already at work; but English settlers were few and the scattered Spanish and French population was not good material for a revolutionary party. In the north, Nova Scotia was equaUy unpromising. The French peasantry took Uttle interest in politics and the smaU English population was out of touch with movements to the southward. About Canada, however, the Whigs were for a time more hopeful. This newly conquered province could hardly be expected to show any real loyalty to the British Crown, or toward the EngUsh ruling class, from whom they differed in nationality, language, and reUgion. On the other hand, these differences separated the Canadians even more from the American Whigs than from the imperial government. Under the Quebec Act the rights of their church were now fuUy recognized and their old civU law reestabUshed; but the Continental Congress of 1774 had denounced these very concessions and had used the prevaUing anti-CathoUc feeling of the older colonies as "campaign material" against the British. In undertaking after this to enlist the Canadians as aUies, on issues which meant Uttle to them, the Whigs were playing a difficult game. Yet the chance seemed to be worth trying and so the Con gress of 1775 published an appeal to the Canadian people. The delegates also overcame their Protestant prejudices sufficiently to send the Catholic, John CarroU, from Mary land, along with Franklin to plead the Whig cause in Canada. This diplomatic move was to be supported by a mUitary expedition. In May, 1775, the frontiersmen of Vermont, led by the strenuous Ethan AUen, gained an important advantage by seizing Ticonderoga and Crown Point, which controUed an CANADA AND THE CAROLINAS 447 important section of the historic waterway between the Hudson and the St. Lawrence. Soon afterwards Congress determined to attempt the invasion of Canada, and in the autumn of 1775 two cooperating expeditions were on their way. One, under the young Irish officer, Richard Mont gomery, foUowed the Lake Champlain route and in November captured Montreal. The other, commanded by Benedict Arnold, an energetic officer from Connecticut, made a he roic winter march through the wUds of Maine. The two forces united before Quebec; but on the last day of the old year the American assault was beaten back and Montgomery was kUled. The siege continued for several months and Congress sent reenforcements; but the British were ably led by Sir Guy Carleton and the French showed Uttle interest. By the summer of 1776 the Americans had faUen back to Crown Point. Though the immediate object of the Quebec expedition The British was not realized, it did some good by weakening the British 0j I7?6 offensive. Three months passed after the occupation of delayed. Boston before Howe was ready to begin his attack on New York. There were attacks on seaboard towns Uke Falmouth in Maine and Norfolk in Virginia, but they accomplished little; their chief result was to exasperate the Americans and help the radical agitation for independence. The only important offensive movement of the British before the summer of 1776 was the southern campaign, which aimed at the capture of Charleston, and a loyalist uprising to detach the southern colonies from the Continental Congress. This campaign faUed, partly because the up-country loyal ists of the Carolinas were poorly organized and did not come out in sufficient numbers. Before they were ready to cooperate with the British landing force, they were over whelmed by the Whigs at Moores Creek Bridge, North Carolina. In spite of this disappointment, the British commander, General Clinton, with the cooperation of the 448 REVOLUTION, i774-i77<5 Defense of Charleston. The drift toward in dependence. Breakdownof the provincial governments. fleet, attacked Charleston in June, 1776; but the South Carolinians, led by President Rutledge and WiUiam Moultrie, made a brave defense and Charleston was saved. After fourteen months of fighting the British had no solid foot hold in any of the thirteen colonies. As the summer came on, it was evident that the whole character of the conflict had changed. In June, 1775, the colonists stiU professed to be merely British subjects de fending themselves agamst unconstitutional measures. How ever reasonable that theory may have been in the beginning, it was fast becoming untenable. Americans could not go on indefinitely professing loyalty to a King whose fleets were attacking their coasts and whose armies they were doing their best to destroy. In other ways, too, the struggle had ceased to be a mere famUy quarrel. George III was calling in German mercenaries and the colonists were begin ning to think seriously of foreign help. Already the French had sent agents to study the situation, and in November, 1775, the Continental Congress appointed a committee to correspond " with our friends in Great Britain, Ireland, and other parts of the world." After some violent protests against negotiations with foreign powers, Congress finally, in March, 1776, appointed SUas Deane as its agent in Paris. If the colonists were stUl British subjects, this was nothing less than treason. Another factor which helped the advocates of inde pendence was the gradual disappearance of the old gov ernments. In the early months of 1776, a few royal gov ernors were still trying to preserve some shreds of authority. Governor Tryon of New York and Lord Dunmore of Virginia took refuge on British vessels, from which they tried to organize the loyaUsts against the revolutionary forces. GeneraUy speaking, however, the royal and pro prietary governments had given way to provincial con gresses and committees. These revolutionary organizations REVOLUTIONARY GOVERNMENTS 449 were weU enough for temporary purposes but they could not meet the permanent needs of the community. They had been chosen in irregular ways and their powers were not clearly defined; in short, they had no legal status. The old constitutions of the colonies rested largely on royal charters or commissions, and officeholders had to swear aUegiance to the King. These foundations were crumbling and a new public law would have to be developed, or the country would drift toward anarchy. Loyalists regarded these destructive tendencies as the natural result of Whig teaching; even thoroughgoing Whigs were alarmed by the growing spirit of lawlessness. The problem of reconstruction was comparatively simple The prob- in Connecticut and Rhode Island, because their govern- construction. ments, though based on royal charters, consisted wholly of officials chosen directly or indirectly by the people. Even Massachusetts kept up as much of its old government as it could, after eliminating the royal governor. In the ordi nary royal and proprietary governments no such arrange ment was practicable. So, from one provmce after another, came appeals to Congress for advice. In November, Con gress answered an inquiry from New Hampshne by advising the formation of a temporary government based on the authority of the people. SimUar advice was given to South Carolina, which adopted a temporary constitution early in 1776. All these developments made compromise more difficult and forced Americans to choose squarely between going back to the old loyalty or pressing resolutely forward toward independence. During the last months of 1775, radicals like John Adams Failure and Richard Henry Lee grew more and more impatient conciliation with halfway measures, and Washington's influence was policy. presently felt in the same direction. Between Virginia and New England, however, — in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, — the loyalists were powerful, 450 REVOLUTION, i 774-1776 as they were also in the Carolinas and Georgia. FranHin, back at home once more, was now definitely on the radical side; but the moderate Whigs, led by John Jay of New York, James WUson and John Dickinson of Pennsyl vania, and the Rutledges of South Carolina, stiff hoped against hope for reconciUation. Unfortunately for them, the concUiatory documents which Congress adopted under their influence in the summer of 1775 were not weU received. in England. New legislation cut off intercourse with the rebeUious colonies and negotiations for German mercenaries were continued. Public In these trying months, when perhaps half of the Ameri- Paine's can people were wavering between the hope of reconciUation Commor an(j the radical proposal of absolute independence, a young man named Thomas Paine published a small pamphlet entitled Common Sense. Paine, who had Uved in America only a few months, was not a great thinker; but he could write vigorously and knew how to influence the average man. He now argued that the time had come for breaking away from old traditions; "a new method of thinking hath arisen." He answered the appeal for loyalty to the mother country by saying that America was the chUd not of England only but of Europe. There was "something absurd," he said, "in supposing a continent to be perpetually governed by an island." There was some language in the pamphlet which, as John Adams said, was "suitable for an emigrant from Newgate"; as, for instance, his reference to George III as the "royal Brute" of England. With aU its coarseness and declamation, Common Sense was a great book. It did popularize a new and less provincial "method of thinking. " In a remarkable way, Paine touched the imagi nation of Americans with his vision of a new, independent, and democratic nationahty. Many of them disapproved of his ultraradical phUosophy; but there was a driving force in it which no one was more ready to recognize than COMMERCE AND WAR 45 1 the hard-headed, somewhat aristocratic, gentleman who commanded the Continental army. Early in 1776, the moderate Whigs were forced into a Congress series of measures which, taken together, made independence °p foei^3 almost inevitable. EspeciaUy important was the decision shipping. to break away from the old commercial system which excluded foreign ships from American ports. The Associ ation of 1774, the retaliatory measures of Parliament, and the outbreak of hostiUties made impossible most of the old trade within the empire, though some exceptions were made on both sides, as when Congress permitted South Carolina to export rice and the British aUowed trade with certain colonies in the hope of winning them over. In short, the old system had broken down; but there was no clean-cut uniform policy to put in its place, and the result was much misunderstanding and friction among the colonies. Es peciaUy urgent just then was the need of importing mUitary suppUes from continental Europe; in spite of strenuous efforts to stimulate American production, it was impossible to get on without foreign help, not only in selling suppUes but in transporting them across the ocean. So after long debates and strenuous opposition from conservative members, Congress voted in AprU, 1776, a kind of commercial decla ration of independence. In flat defiance of the Navigation Acts, American ports, hitherto open only to British and colonial vessels, were thrown open to the trade of aU nations except Great Britain. Meantime, Congress was also discussing the difficult Disarming problem of the loyalists, who still upheld the old government loyalists. and even though temporarUy overawed were likely at any time to cooperate actively with the British army. The Whig party everywhere acted on the theory that, for the time being at any rate, a new authority had been created and intrusted to the revolutionary government, Continental, provincial, and local. Those who accepted this new order 45 2 REVOLUTION, I774~t776 Resolutionof May, 1776. Victoryof the radicals. were good citizens; all others were to be regarded as enemies. As the war went on it became increasingly neces sary to draw this clean-cut line between enemies and friends; but to a large extent the problem was dealt with independ ently by the revolutionary organization in each province. Everywhere it became harder for men to be neutral, and persons suspected of having Tory sympathies were perse cuted, required to take various tests, and often driven into exUe. Effective as this local action often was, it seemed desirable that Congress should adopt a general poUcy. Accordingly, in the spring and winter of 1776, Congress passed resolutions urging the government of each colony to disarm aU persons who were "notoriously disaffected" or who refused to help in defending the country against the British forces. This virtual assertion of a new allegiance replacing the old one led naturaUy to another forward step which made the formal declaration of independence almost superfluous. By resolution of May 10, adopted on the initiative of John Adams, Congress recommended aU the colonies to form such governments "as shaU, in the opinion of the representatives of the people, best conduce to the happiness and safety of their constituents in particular and America in general." Especially significant was the preamble, published with the resolution though adopted five days later. The taking of an oath to support government under the Crown was de clared to be contrary to reason and conscience; and aU authority under the Crown was held to be "totally sup pressed." Governmental powers should now be exercised "under the authority of the people of the colonies, for the preservation of internal peace, virtue, and good order." This was not done without a vigorous protest. WUson of Pennsylvania admitted the need of new organizations to preserve order but feared the resolution would make trouble in his own colony, where the regular provincial assembly MOVING TOWARD INDEPENDENCE 453 was having a hard struggle with radical elements in Phila delphia, as weU as in the up-country districts. If the pre amble were adopted, Pennsylvania might fall into a state of confusion. Why such haste? WUson asked. "Before we are prepared to buUd the new house, why should we puU down the old one?" But Adams and his supporters were determined and this time they had the votes. This same month of May saw the Virginians hard at Action of work putting the new theory into practice. The blundering Vusma" violence of Governor Dunmore, his attempts to excite a slave insurrection, and the intrigues of some of his associates had discredited the loyaUsts and consoUdated sentiment in favor of decisive measures. The provincial convention now committed itself to the principle of independence and began forming a state constitution. A resolution was also adopted instructing the Virginia delegates in Congress to move for independence, confederation, and foreign affiances. Such a motion was accordingly made on June 7, by Richard Henry Lee, appropriately seconded by John Adams. Virginia and Massachusetts were now standing together The issue for independence; but Congress stiU hesitated. Men Uke pos pon Jay and Duane in New York, or Dickinson and WUson in Pennsylvania, were placed between two fires. As Whigs they had gone too far for their conservative neighbors; but they were alarmed by the radical democratic forces which the revolution had developed. So they pleaded for delay, and the radicals waited in the hope of getting united action later. On June 10, the vote on independence was postponed for three weeks to give the delegates another opportunity to get the opinions of their constituents. Meantime, the advocates of independence, anxious to lose as little time as possible, secured the appointment of three important com mittees. The committee to draft a declaration of inde- Committees pendence included four radicals, Jefferson, FrankUn, Adams, pendence, and Sherman, with one moderate, Livingston of New York. etc- 454 REVOLUTION, 1774-1776 The two other committees were to consider confederation and foreign alliances, and on these the moderates were Uberally recognized. Dickinson was a member of both and chairman of the former; his equally cautious coUeague, Robert Morris, served on the committee to consider foreign alliances. The last During the next three weeks the radicals were hard at work bringing the doubtful colonies into line. In the middle group the conventions of New Jersey and Maryland voted for independence. In Pennsylvania the assembly hesitated, but a conference of revolutionary committees declared for independence. The South CaroUna delegates found it hard to reach a decision, because their instructions were indefinite and they were too far away to keep in touch with their constituents. When, on July 1, the debate was resumed in Congress there was a clear majority for inde pendence; but the conservatives were stiU asking for more time. Dickinson argued that the colonies should form an effective federal union before committing themselves to permanent separation from the empire. He was vigorously answered by John Adams, and on the same day a vote was taken in committee of the whole, showing nine colonies for independence — the four New England colonies, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia; of the remaining four, the New York delegates refused to vote at aU and Delaware's vote was divided, whUe Pennsylvania and South Carolina voted against independence. The formal vote was then postponed until the next day, July 2, and a great effort was made to secure unanimous action. The vote Before the vote was taken, the arrival of an absent pendence. member gave the radicals a majority from Delaware, and the South Carolinians decided to take the chance of voting for independence and getting the approval of their constitu ents later. The Pennsylvania delegation was stiff divided; INDEPENDENCE DECLARED 455 but its members were under heavy pressure from impatient radicals in their own colony, and when the final vote was taken only two voted definitely against independence. Two others, Dickinson and Morris, stayed away, and WUson went with the majority. So on July 2 the great decision was made with twelve colonies voting aye. New York stUl refrained from voting, but a week later the provincial con vention gave its formal assent. The same day, the com- The Decla- mittee appointed to draft a declaration made its report. This dependence?" draft was almost whoUy the work of the chairman, Thomas Jefferson, and in some passages the document reflected the individuaUty of the writer. There were, for instance, extreme views about colonial independence of ParUament which were certainly not shared by all his colleagues. There was also a passage denouncing the King for his part in the introduction of slavery into the colonies, which offended some of the delegates who were interested in the slave trade, and was accordingly struck out. Congress made other minor changes and then formaUy adopted the text of the Declaration on July 4. Some time afterwards, Congress voted that the Declaration should be signed by all the members, and signa tures were accordingly attached at different dates during the next few months. The poUtical theory of the Declaration was not new. Political John Adams, who, with all his great qualities, was not always of the°P V magnanimous, complained of its lack of originality; but Declaration. in such a document originality was not desirable. What the occasion required, and what Jefferson actually did, for the most part, was to put together, in effective literary form, ideas and language famUiar to aU who had followed the discussions of the past fifteen years: All men are created equal; being naturally free, they have established govern ments for the purpose of securing their inalienable rights; aU just governments rest on the consent of the governed and can be dissolved when they faU to serve the fundamental 456 REVOLUTION, 1774-1776 The list of •grievances. The real cause of the Revolution. An_ American civil war. purposes for which the compact was made, — all these doctrines Americans had learned from John Locke, Algernon Sidney, and other seventeenth-century EngUsh writers. Locke had used them to defend the EngUsh Revolution of 1688, which estabUshed the sovereignty of Parliament as against the claims of the Stuart kings; but now they were used against ParUament itself. The Declaration of 1776 resembled the Whig documents of 1765 and 1774 in denouncing acts of Parliament which were held to be unconstitutional, especiaUy those imposing taxes and the Coercive Acts of 1774. Unlike the older statements, however, the Declaration of Independence directed its main attack against the King himseff. Even acts of Parliament were treated as the result of a conspiracy for which George III was held largely responsible. Striking also is the long Ust of grievances, which included not merely those of recent years but reached back to the old colonial system. More fundamental, however, to an understanding of the American Revolution than any mere Ust of grievances, new or old, was the inevitable difficulty of reconciling im perial authority exercised across three thousand mUes of ocean, with traditional English ideals of self-government, developed and made more aggressive by the stimulating atmosphere of the American frontier. Finally, it must be remembered that, though the Decla ration was officially described as "unanimous," it did not express the unanimous opinion of the American people, even after its tardy ratification by New York. In New England and Virginia there was a decided preponderance of opinion in its favor; but elsewhere the opposing forces were strong and many people asked only to be let alone. So the great war for independence was not simply a conflict between the imperial government and a group of revolting colonies, but almost as truly a civU war between two Ameri can parties, one standing for an old aUegiance and an old BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 457 patriotism, the other looking forward hopefuUy to the establishment of a new order. BD3LIO GRAPHICAL NOTES Becker, Eve of the American Revolution, 220-256. Channing, General United States, III, chs. VI-VII. Fisher, Struggle for American references. Independence, chs. XXI-XLI. Frothingham, Rise of the Republic, chs. X-XI. Howard, Preliminaries, chs. XVII, XVIII; with Van Tyne, C. H., American Revolution, chs. II-VL Lecky, England in the Eighteenth Century, III, 456-499. Trevelyan, G. O., American Revolution, I, chs. VII-XI; n, chs. XII-XVI. Winsor, America, VI, chs. II, III. Bancroft, United States, IV (author's last revision). Macdonald, Select Charters, nos. 74-80. Hart, Contemporaries, Collected II, nos. 154-161, 184-188 (Ulustrating public opinion). Very ex- sources- tensive coUections, worth sampling even by the general reader, are Force, P., American Archives, and Moore, F., Diary of the American Revolution (newspaper material). Biographies of J. Adams by J. T. Morse and M. Chamber- American lain; Washington, by H. C. Lodge and W. C. Ford; Henry, by w^.erss- Henry and Tyler; Dickinson, by C. J. StiUe. Adams, J., Autobiography, diary, etc., in Works, II, 405-517, writings 111,3-59 (debates on independence, 44-59). Franklin, B., Writings °l wlug (VI in Smyth edition). Paine, T., Common Sense in Works (Con way edition), I. Washington, Writings (Ford edition), II. Tyler, M. C, The Loyalists {Am. Hist. Review, I, 24-45) > more Loyalist fully in his Literary History of the American Revolution, II. Van elements- Tyne, C. H., Loyalists in the American Revolution, chs. I-V. Schlesinger, Colonial Merchants and the American Revolution, chs. XI-XV. Baldwin, E. H., Joseph Galloway {Penn. Mag. of Hist. and Biog., XXVI, nos. 2-4). Hosmer, Thomas Hutchinson. T. Hutchinson, Diary and Letters, I. Eddis, W., Letters from LoyaUst America. Whig-Tory debate in J. Adams and [D. Leonard], mtiDss- Novanglus and Massachuttendis. Summaries in Tyler, Literary History of the American Revolution. Becker, Political Parties in the Province of New York. Ecken- Local rode, H. J., Revolution in Virginia, chs. I-V. Lincoln, Revoht- conditions. 458 REVOLUTION, 1774-1776 tionary Movement in Pennsylvania, chs. XI-XIII. McCrady, South Carolina, 17 19-1776, chs. XXXLX-XLI; and his South Carolina in the Revolution, chs. I-VIII. Sharpless, Quaker Govern ment, II, ch. V. Declaration Merriam, C. E., American Political Theories., ch. II. Dunning, pendence. W. A., Political Theory, Luther to Montesquieu, ch. X (Locke). So"rees Locke J., Two Treatises of Civil Government. Jefferson, Writings (Ford edition), n, 42-58. American History Leaflets, no. 11. FuUer discussion in G. H. Hazelton, Declaration of Independence. CHAPTER XX THE OPPOSING FORCES While Congress was debating the subject of independ- Making tte ence, the first installment of Howe's army was arriving in Declaration New York harbor, and on the day after the decisive vote was taken, British troops landed on Staten Island. The Whig section of the American people, speaking through their delegates in Congress assembled, had declared that "these united colonies are and of right ought to be free and inde pendent states." Now the hard practical question was whether they could make that declaration good against Great Britain and their own conservative neighbors. To many a hard-headed American who had got along British comfortably under British sovereignty, this attempt to a van ases' break up the greatest empire of modern times seemed utterly reckless. The British advantage in population, perhaps about three to one if Ireland is left out of the account, was not so serious, considering the distance at which British opera tions had to be carried on. More important was the dis parity in wealth. America was rich in unused and largely un known natural resources; but it was still largely dependent on European capital, which so far had come almost entirely from England, and it was especiaUy lacking in facilities for the manufacture of military supplies. England, on the contrary, though much smaUer than France in population, was the strongest commercial nation in the world. For mUitary campaigns carried on across three thousand Naval and mUes of ocean and along a great stretch of coast line, naval an orccs' power was vital, and here again the British position seemed 459 460 THE OPPOSING FORCES unusuaUy strong. The Seven Years' War had shown the superiority of England's navy, even to a combination of her two most formidable rivals, France and Spain. In land forces England was as usual much weaker, but it was not unreasonable to suppose that even a smaU disciplined army, with officers and men Uke those who fought under Amherst and Woffe in Canada, could defeat the inexperi enced commanders and hastily improvised armies of the American rebels. Besides, British money could be used to pay for foreign soldiers, as it had been in the last war with France and was to be again in the Napoleonic Wars. The American loyalists could also be used; though dis appointing in some respects, they probably furnished some thing like 50,000 soldiers to the British army, and they were active in other ways, open or secret, which were scarcely less dangerous to the American cause. America A most serious handicap on the American side was the OTganized. ^^ °f an adequate organization to use such resources as were avaUable for the common cause. At the head of the revolutionary movement was the Continental Congress, a convention of party leaders suddenly caUed on to per form some of the most important and difficult functions of government; to maintain an army and a navy, to initiate diplomatic intercourse with foreign governments, and to find the money necessary for these expensive operations. The American leaders were like manufacturers trying to turn out finished products while the factory was still being buUt and the machinery stUl in process of installation. That was an enormous handicap which can hardly be over emphasized in trying to form a fair judgment of the revo lutionary leaders. This disadvantage continued throughout the war, which was nearly over before the states could be persuaded to confer formaUy upon Congress even the limited authority allowed by the Articles of Confederation. In certain great crises Congress acted vigorously as a CONGRESS AND THE STATES 461 de facto government, in something like a national character, The Con- as may be seen in the extraordinary powers given to Wash- congress, ington in December, 1776, and in the French affiance of 1778; but generaUy the local poUticians regarded Congress merely as a cooperative agency for thirteen sovereign states, with no claim on the direct aUegiance of any citizen. In that spirit a New Jersey poUtician complained of Washington for trying to distinguish between friends and enemies by demanding an oath of allegiance to the United States. In this matter of organization, the seceding Americans of 1776 were very different from the southern secessionists of 1861. When the Civil War began, the South had a federal gov ernment with a definite constitution, a recognized legis lature, a president with real power, and responsible heads of several executive departments. The leaders of the Ameri can Revolution had no such advantages at any time during the eight years between the outbreak at Lexington and the peace treaty of 1783. The troubles of Congress were not due wholly to the Congres- grudging attitude of the states. Few of its members had methods. ever held any important executive office, and there were important principles of governmental efficiency which they had to leam by slow and painful experience. They did not realize, for example, the advantage of concentrating respon sibility. On the contrary, their colonial experience had developed extreme jealousy of one-man power. So Congress tried to handle an impossible amount of detail in general meeting. When they could not do that, they organized numerous committees for administrative as well as legis lative work. It was not until June, 1776, after nearly a year The War of fighting, that Congress organized a War Office, in the charge of a board of which John Adams was chairman. Able men served on this committee, but most of them be longed also to many other committees, some of which were scarcely less important. The wonder is not that men so 462 THE OPPOSING FORCES Committees on finance and foreign affairs. The state governments. heavUy loaded with unfamUiar duties should often have blundered, but rather that they accomplished as much as they did. In 1777 Congress appointed a new Board of War, with General Gates, then very popular on account of his victory at Saratoga, as one of its members; but this also proved disappointing. Not until 1781, when the war was nearly over, did Congress see the necessity of appointing a single executive head for this department. Other important departments were simUarly managed by committees without sufficient power or responsibUity, though they also were served by some able men. In finance the chief figure was Robert Morris, perhaps the ablest business man of his day. With great energy and pubUc spirit, he gave to Congress at a critical time the advantage of his own prestige. When in 1781 Congress finally decided on a single head for this department, Morris was naturaUy chosen. Of those best qualified for handling foreign relations, several were naturaUy drafted for service abroad, — Franklin, in 1776, and later John Adams and John Jay. The first Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, also appointed in 1781, was Robert R. Liv ingston of New York, better known now for his part, thirty years later, in the Louisiana purchase. Poor organization and inefficiency were conspicuous not only in the federal government but also in the states, most of which had to go through the process of transformation from revolutionary conventions and committees to orderly constitutional governments. Only Connecticut and Rhode Island, with their exceptionaUy liberal charters, could con tinue the old machinery without material change. Massa chusetts tried to keep up some features of its charter government without a royal governor; but elsewhere new governments had to be buUt up almost from the ground. Virginia framed a permanent constitution in 1776, but other colonies were less fortunate; the Massachusetts constitution was not adopted until 1 780. Meanwhile, the legal authority of THE STATE GOVERNMENTS 463 these new organizations was disputed by the large part of the population which stiU professed aUegiance to the King, Much of the ordinary business of government, including the administration of justice, was performed with great difficulty and sometimes suspended altogether. The character of the new constitutions also made trouble. New consti- The same distrust of executive authority which weakened weakS' the federal government showed itself in the state govern- executives. ments also. So the early state constitutions weakened the executive and made it subordinate to the legislature. The Virginians, for example, had been accustomed to a strong royal governor, appointed for an indefinite term, with a veto on colonial laws and a Uberal appointing power; but now they went to the opposite extreme. The governor became a mere creature of the legislature, chosen by it for one year only, with no right of veto and little authority of any sort. Pennsylvania preferred to have no governor at aU and put the executive power in the hands of a council. As the war went on, some people realized that this weakening of the executive was dangerous; and under the leadership of John Adams, the Massachusetts constitution of 1780 made the governor more independent of the legislature. Quite aside from any mistakes in the constitutions, both state and federal governments suffered from that lessening of respect for constituted authority which naturally results from a great political upheaval. The lawless element did not object to this; but responsible leaders had unpleasant visions of the country drifting into a state of anarchy. No one suffered more from these conditions than the Conti nental army, and especiaUy its great commander, who saw his foUowers exposed to unnecessary hardships, and their cause endangered, by weak administration. Nowhere was governmental weakness more apparent Economic than in dealing with economic problems. War is a great pr0' " financial enterprise, requiring not only brave and disciplined 464 THE OPPOSING FORCES soldiers led by trained officers, but a large number of strictly business operations. Food, clothing, and munitions must be bought and distributed; means of transportation must be provided by land and water; officers and men must be regularly paid. Congress had to meet these needs with no effective means of raising money except loans or requisitions. The states, which alone possessed the taxing power, were afraid to use it vigorously, partly because such action was bound to be unpopular. Whatever justification there may have been for this policy, it is certain that the Americans of 1776 did not throw their economic resources into the struggle to any such extent as, for instance, the Southern Confederates of 1861, or the belligerent nations in the recent World War. As Washington said, the country lacked not so much resources as the means of drawing them out. Mean time, the army complained bitterly of the civilians who clung to their money when the soldiers were giving up their fives. Paper One way of keeping down taxes to which most of the colonies were accustomed before the Revolution, was the free use of paper money. This practice had been checked by the British government; but with this check removed, Congress and the state legislatures vied with each other in reckless issues of currency, which naturaUy sank lower and lower in value, untU the Continental money was worth only Loans. a smaU fraction of its face value. The issue of paper cur rency was, of course, one way of borrowing money. Loans were also made in more businesslike ways from the French and Spanish governments and from private capitahsts in those countries. One of John Adams's most important services was the securing of loans from the Dutch; in fact, the American envoys abroad were largely occupied with efforts of this kind, and sometimes the efforts of the United States to shift the burden from their own shoulders to those of foreign governments were embarrassing to their representatives. .. MILITARY ADMINISTRATION 465 The financial weakness of the government naturally Manage- showed itself in the management of the army. Because of ment o£ thc it Congress could not long support more than a handful of real Continental troops, as distinguished from the state miUtia; and the state militia could not be counted on for steady service. Now and then, as at Saratoga, the mUitia helped to hem in an enemy force which had got too far from its base; but they were likely to weaken in a pitched battle or when anything began to go wrong. At certain critical moments Washington's main army had less than three thousand men, and in the decisive Yorktown campaign he had no more than six thousand Continental troops. Since the terms of enlistment were short, the army was constantly on the verge of disintegration. It was, of course, hard to recruit men for an army in which they could not count on getting then pay regularly, and officers resented the un necessary hardships imposed on them and their famUies. Even when money was avaffable, it was often ineffectively used. The terrible sufferings of the army at Valley Forge, in the winter of 1777-1778, were due partly to difficulties of transportation and the preference of some Pennsylvania farmers for British gold over Continental paper; but bad management in the offices of the quartermaster-general and commissary-general was also largely to blame. In 1778 General Greene was persuaded to serve as quarter master-general and did excellent work; but in 1780, when Congress tried the plan of getting the states to furnish specific supplies instead of money, there was another period of unsatisfactory administration, for which the soldiers had to suffer. Naturally the morale of the army was lowered and there were some serious mutinies. Problems of the kind described were particularly trying inexperience when so many of the officers were comparatively inexpert. omcersenCaD The first four major generals under Washington were mediocre or worse, and one of them, Charles Lee, was quite 466 THE OPPOSING FORCES Foreign officers. Lafayette. erratic and untrustworthy. Of the men who came to the front later a few had real mUitary abiUty. Conspicuous among them was Benedict Arnold, who showed great daring and initiative in the naval campaigns on Lake Champlain in 1776; Daniel Morgan of Virginia, an effective leader of the frontiersmen; and finaUy Nathanael Greene, the ablest of them aU. With no mUitary experience before the war, Greene soon won Washington's confidence, and in the south ern campaigns of 1781 fairly earned a place second only to his commander in chief among the soldiers of the Revolution. Besides the American officers, there were many Euro peans who were willing to practice their profession in America for what they considered proper rewards in rank and pay. Comparatively few, however, were really useful; even the best of them were hampered by imperfect knowledge of English and the common prejudice against outsiders. Of the foreigners who gave valuable expert service, the first place undoubtedly belongs to the German, Steuben, who as inspector-general gave America the benefit of his experience in the army of Frederick the Great. With him should be mentioned Kalb, a German officer in French employ. Among those who combined professional skiU with real enthusiasm for the American cause were two Poles, Kosciusko and Pulaski, representatives of a nation whose independence was already threatened by unscrupulous neighbors. Both were good soldiers and Kosciusko did effective work as an engineer. Quite unique among the foreign officers was the Marquis de Lafayette. Coming to America as a young man just under twenty, he was presently given a commission as major general, for which he certainly was not qualified at that time. He did some good work later; but his chief claim to the gratitude of the American people was his steady loyalty to their cause and the influence of his personality in establishing a lasting bond of sympathy between his own country and the strugghng young republic. AMERICAN LEADERSHIP 467 As commander in chief Washington was much harassed PoUtics and by political interference with mUitary appointments. Indi- the army- vidual states tried to push the promotion of local favorites. At the beginning, the South complained that New England had too many of the higher commissions and there was similar feeling in the Middle States. Some New England leaders were very critical of Washington and inclined to push Gates at his expense. Even in Washington's own state, Richard Henry Lee sympathized with the malcontents. Sea power played an important part in the winning of Beginnings independence, but the direct contributions of the American American navy were of minor importance. There was never any uavy- considerable American fleet and the fighting marine consisted largely of privateers, who devoted themselves mainly to commerce destroying. The profits were so attractive, both to officers and men, that they interfered at times with re cruiting for the army and the regular navy. First and last, much damage was done to British trade, and there were some briUiant exploits, notably those of Paul Jones, best remembered for the naval duel between his ship, the Bon- homme Richard, and the British frigate Serapis. With a worn-out French ship and a heterogeneous crew, of whom scarcely more than a third were Americans, Jones won his victory by fine seamanship combined with almost reckless courage. Incidents like these deserve to be remembered; but the navy which counted most heavUy in the fight against British sea power was that of France. In spite of aU these evidences of weakness on the American American side, the great fact which has to be accounted for is that, q^I' after aU, independence was won. What, then, were the ^adungton. forces that made victory possible? Clearly one of these factors was the personal contribution of certain great leaders. Washington doubtless made many mistakes between his defeat on Long Island and the final victory at Yorktown; but he held Americans together under conditions which 468 THE OPPOSING FORCES Civilian leaders. Geographicfactors. would have discouraged a mere miUtary expert. He did not win many battles; but, Uke WiUiam of Orange in the wars against Louis XXV, he could save the day even after some apparently irretrievable disaster. John Adams had his foibles, — his vanity, his jealousy of coUeagues who seemed to have more than their share of recognition, and his amateur notions of war, — aU these were a part of the man; but they were the least important part. It is much more worth whUe to remember his administrative service in the Continental Congress, under most discouraging con ditions, and his soUd work for America in France and HoUand. Surely, too, there were few statesmen in any country at that time who could compare in diplomatic skill and soUd good sense with Benjamin FrankUn. There were foUowers, too, who should not be forgotten. If then, as always, there were profiteers and slackers, there were also the loyal officers and men who stood by Washington through the discouraging autumn of 1776 and the even more tragic winter at VaUey Forge. With these great human assets, America had also certain great natural advantages. Even for a first-class naval power like Great Britain, the conduct of miUtary operations on a distant continent was a serious matter, so serious that some of the King's advisers thought it almost hopeless. UntU the American army could be finaUy disposed of, the holding of, more than a few points on the seaboard would require a' much larger army than the British government could send. Therefore the expeditionary forces were largely dependent on suppUes from England. Though the Uttle American navy played a minor part in the strategy of the war, it could now and then cut off British suppUes. Distance also compU cated the planning of mUitary operations to an extent that can hardly be appreciated in these days of cable and wireless communication. Plans made in London, on the basis of advice from returned officers or dispatches from generals John Adams EUROPEAN FACTORS 469 in the field, were several months old before they could be effectively acted upon. In 1777 the three men most directly responsible for the Saratoga campaign were Lord Germain in England, General Burgoyne, who led the invading army through the wildernesses between Montreal and Albany, and General Howe at New York, who was planning his attack on PhUadelphia. The faUure of these men to act effectively together was due partly to personal reasons, but partly also to the distances which separated them. FinaUy, it must be remembered that the war was won European almost as truly in Europe as in America. Even during the English first three years, when the colonies were nominaUy fighting isolation- alone, the British government was handicapped by the unfriendly attitude of the continental powers, — France, Spain, HoUand, and even Prussia, England's recent aUy. They were all nominaUy neutral at first; but neutrality was often strained to the breaking point in the interest of the American rebels. Both France and Spain gave substantial assistance through individuals, acting with the connivance and often the secret cooperation of their governments. England also had difficulties nearer home, particularly Ireland. in Ireland. Some Irishmen served in the British army, but of the recent Irish emigrants to America a considerable number entered the American service. Franklin, who visited Ireland shortly before his return home in 1775, found a good deal of sympathy for the American cause, and suggested that Irishmen and Americans might combine to secure "more equitable treatment," "for them as well as for us." Interest in the American cause was especiaUy noted among the Scotch-Irish Presbyterians of Ulster, so many of whose neighbors had already crossed the Atlantic. Disturbance of trade resulting from the war increased Irish discon tent, and after France came in, in 1778, the armed Volun teers used their organization to secure concessions from the British government, including the removal of old 470 THE OPPOSING FORCES restrictions on the legislative freedom of the Irish parlia ment. EngUsh The attitude of Englishmen toward the war cannot be opinion. stated in a few simple generalizations. This is partly because Parliament did not fairly reflect public opinion. The various districts were aUotted representation with little reference to population, and in many boroughs the handful of voters could easUy be managed by local magnates or by court poli ticians who could distribute offices, pensions, and secret- service money. This was an old game which the Whig politicians had played with great success; but now the King was using the same methods to promote his policies. The King also got fairly steady support from the Scotch members, who had been chosen under a system even more unrepresent ative than that of England. The country gentry who came up from the comparatively honest county constituencies also at first generally supported the government. Even the merchants, though reluctant to disturb friendly and profitable business relations with the colonies, were offended by such disregard of property rights as that shown in the Boston Tea Party and were encouraged for a time by a new develop ment of trade nearer home. In almost every class, there were honest and otherwise inteUigent men, like Samuel Johnson, whose fighting spirit was stirred by deliberate defiance of King and Parliament. Johnson's tract against the colonies entitled Taxation No Tyranny was done over for popular consumption by no less a person than John Wesley, the great leader of the Methodist movement. For a time, therefore, EngUsh support of the war was fairly general. The EngUsh Throughout the war, however, there was a considerable element which strongly condemned the whole poUcy. This discontent was perhaps most general among the middle classes, and in the manufacturing centers the loss of American trade was soon keenly felt. There were mutterings even in ENGLISH PUBLIC OPINION 471 the army and navy. Admiral Keppel, one of the great naval commanders of the time, refused to take service "in the line of America" and General Conway declared that there were limits to the principle of military obedience in a civff war. Apparently neither of these men lost much popularity by statements which would ordinarUy be regarded as fla grantly disloyal. Several prominent newspapers in London and elsewhere opposed the government's American poUcy, and though they were often extremely violent the government rarely ventured to interfere with them. The opposition in Parliament was at first ineffective. The oppo- Lord Rockingham, the leader of the "Old Whigs," was paiTament. an honorable man but he lacked energy, and Burke, though a great political thinker, was not then an important party leader. Pitt made impressive speeches in the House of Lords, expressing his sympathy with American complaints; but he was opposed to American independence and did not get on weU with the Rockingham Whigs. Before long, however, the opponents of Lord North found a most effective leader in Charles James Fox. This young man entered ParUament Fox. at about the age of an American coUege sophomore and made his mark before he was twenty-seven. In spite of this precocious political activity he was not a model youth. He had already wasted a great deal of money in gambling, and his political ideals did not, at first, seem more promising than his private conduct. Yet he was a man of generous spirit and soon developed a keen interest not only in the political game but in real public service. During the latter years of the war, Fox's vigorous and picturesque personality was the raUying point of the steadUy growing opposition. Nevertheless, Lord North, the Bedford faction, and the Weakness "King's Friends" had so strong a hold on the poUtical government. machine that the parUamentary opposition would have been ^"f^p comparatively helpless if the government had reaUy managed North. the war efficiently. That, however, they could not do, 472 THE OPPOSING FORCES largely because they had filled the important government offices with a view to winning the support of this or that group of poUticians, rather than securing high-class service. For this, as well as for the war poUcy itself, the King was partly responsible. A hard worker with an inteUigent per sonal interest in mUitary matters, George III was too much involved in "machine poUtics." Perhaps his greatest offense was his refusal in certain great crises to caU in the most competent men, without regard to factional or personal differences. Lord North was in some respects a capable leader and in his personal views on American questions was more liberal than some of his associates. On one occa sion, at least, he was ready to resign in order to escape responsibUity for measures which he could not approve. He was not, however, strong enough either to control the government or to break away from it. Depart- Nowhere was the ministry weaker than in the departments efficiency!" directly responsible for the conduct of the war. The secre- Sandwichand tarv °* state ^or tne c°lonies> wn0 directed the army in America, was Lord George Germain, a thoroughly unfortu nate choice. During the Seven Years' War, he had been cashiered for disobedience to orders on the field of battle, a fact which certainly embarrassed his relations with officers who had to serve under his direction in America. He lacked also the executive ability and understanding of "grand strategy" which made Pitt a great war minister. In naval administration, the faUing off since Pitt's time was even worse. At the head of the administration was Lord Sand wich, a disreputable character, under whose administration the Admiralty reached perhaps its lowest level of corruption. The fighting The demoralizing influence of corrupt and factional services poUtics at headquarters made itself felt in the fighting per sonnel. Admirals complained of being sent to sea in ships that were unprepared, and there was some serious friction between officers who belonged to different political factions. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 473 When France came into the war and the danger to the British Empire became more serious, the British navy puUed itself together and, after missing one great opportunity in 1781, established once more its superiority on the sea. With the army in America it was different. The two commanders in chief, Howe and Clinton, were both second-rate men. Howe had some tactical skUl; but he was dUatory and faUed to get out of a victory the results which might reasonably have been expected. Though allowances must be made for earlier faUures which made Clinton's work more difficult, he also was certainly not a mUitary genius. It is, of course, impossible to say how far the outcome importance of the war was determined by any particular group of in- factore0156* fluences. There can be no doubt, however, that the Ameri can cause was powerfuUy aided by the internal troubles of the mother country as weU as by the peculiar condition of international poUtics which enabled the colonies to secure support from England's enemies in continental Europe. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES Channing, United States, III, 210-225, 388-408. Fisher, S. G., General Struggle for American Independence, I, chs. XXXI, XLII. Tre- references. velyan, G. O., American Revolution, II, ch. XVII; III, XXIV- XXVI; IV, ch. XXVIII. Strongly British view in Belcher, J., First American Civil War, I, chs. VII, VIII; II, chs. IX, X. CoUected sources in Hart, Contemporaries, II, pts. VII, VIII. Winsor, America, VII, ch. I. Trevelyan as above, and his European George III and Charles Fox. Hertz, G. B., OU Colonial System, conditions. chs. V-IX. (See also references in ch. XXI.) Oberholtzer, E. P., Robert Morris, chs. I, II. Sumner, W. G., CiviUan Financier and Finances of the Revolution, I and II, especiaUy chs. ment_ XXIII, XXIV; also his Hamilton, chs. IV-VII. Van Tyne, C. H., American Revolution, chs. LX, XI, XIV. Eckenrode, H. J., Revolution in Virginia, chs. VII-XI. (See also references in ch. XXV.) 474 THE OPPOSING FORCES Sources. LoyaUsts and pacifists.Geographic and economic conditions. The army. Washington. Naval warfare. Continental Congress, Journals (Library of Congress edition; may be sampled for illustrations of business). Adams, J., Auto biography in Works, III, 59-93 ; and Familiar Letters of John and AbigaU Adams. Warren-Adams Letters (Mass. Hist. Soc). Van Tyne, Loyalists, chs. VT-XII. Sharpless, Quaker Govern ment, II, chs. vi-vm. CaUender, Selections from the Economic History of the U. S., 150-168. Weeden, New England, II, chs. XX, XXI. Semple, E. C, American History and Its Geographic Conditions, ch. IV. Hatch, L. C, Administration of the American Revolutionary Army. Bolton, C. K., Private Soldier under Washington. Bever- idge, A. J., John Marshall, I, chs. III-IV (army conditions). See also chapters in Belcher, Fisher, and Trevelyan and for the British army, Fortescue, J. W., History of the British Army, III. Ford, P. L., The True George Washington, chs. LX-XI. Read as many as possible of his letters in Writings (Ford edition; also short coUections by C. B. Evans and J. VUes). Clowes, W. L., History of the Royal Navy, III, ch. XXXI (Mahan). FuUer narrative in AUen, G. W., Naval History of the American Revolution. CHAPTER XXI EUROPE AND AMERICA, 1776 TO 1780 Considering the immense political importance of the Operations American Revolution, the mUitary operations of the war °cale.SmaU were on a surprisingly small scale. During a considerable part of the war, Washington's main army hardly reached the size of a modern brigade, and in the march to Yorktown in 1 781 he took with him only about two thousand American regulars, or roughly the equivalent of a present-day regiment. Compared with the European and American armies of the World War, the forces on both sides seem infinitesimal. Up to the end of June, 1776, the mUitary results were The miUtary fairly satisfactory from the American point of view. The mtua7^0n expedition against Canada had faffed, but the British had withdrawn from Boston and their attack on the Carolinas had broken down. For the moment no territory in any of the thirteen colonies was held by the British, though then- navy enabled them to control New York harbor and keep in touch with the strong loyalist element in that state. Now, however, the Americans had to face two invading armies, striking at opposite ends of the Hudson-Champlain waterway and threatening to isolate New England from the southern colonies. One of these expeditions, commanded by Sir Guy Carleton, the efficient governor of Quebec, graduaUy pushed the Americans back from Canadian terri tory and organized a naval force for the control of Lake Champlain. Fortunately the Americans had in Benedict Arnold a resourceful leader who knew something about ships. 47S asSfip \$®\ \>f p* «1 "! oq 6q a. a d. *1 V) «i l c Ln'W 477 478 EUROPE AND AMERICA, 1776-1780 During the summer he improvised an effective little fleet, which, though finaUy destroyed by the British, held them back so long that Carleton gave up his proposed attack on Ticonderoga and returned to Canada. The British The attack on the lower Hudson was more serious and harboT York came near being disastrous to the American cause. During July and August Sir WiUiam Howe, with an army of over thirty thousand British and German troops, estabUshed himself on Staten Island, whUe the fleet commanded by his brother, Lord Howe, controUed the entrance to New York harbor and the waters surrounding Manhattan Island. Facing this formidable British force stood Washington's army, trying to hold the city of New York. In actual num bers he was weaker than Howe by several thousand men, and in almost everything else the disparity was stiU greater; for a large part of Washington's force consisted of untrained and poorly armed miUtia. The Continental army did not even have a friendly country behind it; for in the lower Hudson vaUey the neutral and Tory elements were very strong. Howe and It was a difficult problem that confronted the American Was gton. generais> as a matter of miUtary strategy the attempt to hold New York was probably a mistake and came near being fatal. Even John Jay, though himself a New Yorker, favored the destruction and abandonment of the city. There was a natural doubt, however, about the political effect of this course, and Washington decided against it. For the defense of New York, Washington had to control Brooklyn Heights, on the other side of the East River, and so the greater part of his army was stationed there, though not in sufficient force to resist Howe's army on its transfer from Staten Island. Fortunately, Howe moved slowly, partly because that was his habit but partly because he and his brother were trying to combine diplomacy with war. After some futUe attempts to negotiate with Washington, a conference was held with LONG ISLAND TO TRENTON 479 some of the leaders of the Continental Congress; but it came to nothing. Meanwhile General Howe proceeded with his mUitary plan. Almost two months after the first landing on Staten Battle of Island, the British crossed the bay to Long Island, and on ^J^ August 27 fought the battle of Brooklyn Heights. The of New York, American army was defeated, lost many of its best troops, and probably could have been almost destroyed if Howe had followed up his advantage quickly. The delay gave Wash ington his chance and on the night of August 29 he ferried his troops across to New York. In September Howe also landed on Manhattan, but again missed an opportunity to destroy the American army, which gradually feU back to White Plains, and finaUy crossed the Hudson into New Jersey. Washington had saved his main army, but his fighting Washing- strength had faUen very low. Before long he had to leave northern New Jersey to the enemy and take refuge across the Delaware in Pennsylvania. The New Jersey Tories received the British with open arms, garrisons were posted across the state, and as winter came on the American cause seemed almost hopeless. Once more, however, Howe's lack of energy saved the day and Washington took fuU advantage of it. By December, 1776, Howe had withdrawn most of his Trenton and army to comfortable winter quarters at New York. One nnceton- of his chief lieutenants, Lord Cornwallis, was ready to take a furlough in England, and the few thousand men left in New Jersey, chiefly Germans, were widely scattered, the outposts on the Delaware being dangerously far from their base at New York. The depredations of the German troops had also weakened tiie loyaUst feeling in the neighborhood, and though the Hessian commander at Trenton had been warned, he faUed to take proper precautions. It was a great opportunity for Washington; but he had to act quickly, for most of his soldiers had enlisted for short terms and were 480 EUROPE AND AMERICA, 1776-1780 likely to leave him in a few days. So, crossing the Delaware and catching the enemy off his guard, Washington struck hard at the Trenton garrison and broke it up, taking many prisoners. This unceremonious interference with Howe's plans for a quiet winter forced CornwalUs to give up his proposed holiday and take the field against the rebels. His forces were superior to those of his enemy; but Washington, avoiding a general engagement, managed to defeat a detached portion of the British army at Princeton. Howe thereupon drew in his garrisons to the vicinity of New York, leaving the Tories to the vengeance of their Whig neighbors. Com ing after a period of great discouragement, the victories of Trenton and Princeton gave the army new confidence in itself and in its commander. The new At the beginning of the new year the British held, in addition to the city of New York and its environs, the town of Newport, which had been taken a few weeks before. The control of these two harbors was an important advantage, secured largely through the cooperation of the navy; but in view of the great superiority of Howe's army, the results of his campaign seem hardly sufficient to justify the Order of the Bath conferred on him in recognition of his "abUities and activity." British In working out the British strategy for 1777, four men were principally concerned: Lord George Germain, in London; Howe, at New York; Carleton, at Quebec; and General Sir John Burgoyne, who, after serving under Howe at Boston, had gone home to offer advice and criticism to his superiors there. Howe was then planning an extensive campaign, aimed primarUy at PhUadelphia, the seat of the "rebel" government. This plan was approved in general; but the government could give him only a small part of the 15,000 troops which he considered necessary for his purpose. Meantime, the way seemed open for another advance from the north against the American positions on the upper CAMPAIGNS OF 1777 481 Hudson, and for reenforcing Howe's army with some of the British troops then stationed in Canada. So a northern army of invasion was formed, of which Burgoyne was made commander. Unfortunately for Burgoyne, especiaUy, there was no proper coordination of his enterprise with that of Howe; the result was a humUiating defeat in one case, and, in the other, apparent success which had little strategic value. For some months Washington was in doubt as to Howe's Howe's plans; but at last the British transports entered Chesapeake ™§hia Bay, having taken that route to avoid the American defenses on the Delaware. From the head of the bay, Howe's army moved northward overland toward PhUadelphia, while the navy, after convoying the troopships, began clearing obstructions in the Delaware River. Thereupon, in Septem ber, 1777, Washington's army moved southward to block Howe's advance. With a force decidedly inferior to Howe's, especially in discipline, Washington engaged the enemy at chads Ford Chads Ford on the Brandywine, but had to fall back with ^n^^ heavy losses. About three weeks later the British entered PhUadelphia. Whatever may be said about Washington's strategy in this campaign, he had improved the fighting spirit of his army and he now made a determined attack on a British detachment at Germantown, only to suffer another defeat. Weakened by these reverses, Washington could not support the garrisons on the Delaware and by the end of the year the British navy had complete control of that river and the bay. In a superficial sense, Howe's capture of the rebel capital Howe at was a great stroke and the loyalists of the neighborhood a ep were in high spirits. Local business men enjoyed a profitable trade with the British army and Howe settled down for another comfortable winter. It is doubtful, however, whether the British gained any solid advantage by this campaign- Once more Howe contented himself with merely defeating 482 EUROPE AND AMERICA, 1 776-1 780 his enemy when he might have crushed him. It was a question whether Howe had taken Philadelphia or, as Franklin said, PhUadelphia had taken Howe. The army which before had been concentrated at New York was now divided; and, with the American army stiU in the field, land communication between these divided forces was at best difficult and might become almost impossible. Burgpyne's Meantime, Burgoyne's invasion had ended in absolute expedition. ' , , , , , ,. . disaster. The general plan of the northern expedition was apparently to strengthen Howe's army by bringing to its support some of the best EngUsh and German troops in Carleton's contingent, now reasonably secure against an American attack. Unfortunately for Burgoyne, the instruc tions given by Lord Germain left Howe free to foUow out his original plan of attacking PhUadelphia and so prevented any effective cooperation between the two commanders. St. Leger in It was also expected that Burgoyne's southward expedition valley. * C would be supported by a secondary movement from the Mohawk vaUey under the command of Colonel St. Leger, who was expected to raUy the loyaUsts and their friends among the Iroquois. Sir WiUiam Johnson, the famous Indian superintendent, was dead, but his son and nephew inherited some of his prestige with the Indians. In the early months of the war, the Johnsons, with many other Tories, had been driven from their homes by a combination of the German frontiersmen with the Albany Whigs under General PhUip Schuyler. Now these loyaUst exUes were organized in mUitary companies, with whose help and that of the Indians St. Leger was expected to crush the Mohawk vaUey Whigs, and then join Burgoyne at Albany. The plan seemed promising; but it was held up by the stubborn resistance of the American garrison at Fort Stanwix, or Fort Schuyler, which controUed the portage between Lake Ontario and the Mohawk. The Mohawk valley Germans now came to the rescue, under the command of General THE SARATOGA CAMPAIGN 483 Herkuner. At Oriskany the Americans were caught in an Oriskany. ambush in which Herkimer was fatally wounded; but they were finaUy victorious. The Indians soon deserted then- British allies; by the end of August, St. Leger had to give up the siege of Fort Schuyler and return to Canada. Burgoyne's main expedition began fairly weU. The Burgoyne's campaign of 1776 had left the British in control of the Lake thfupplr Champlain waterway as far as the neighborhood of Ticonder- Hudson- oga, and the Americans soon gave up that post also. From this point on, however, Burgoyne's troubles became serious. First came a slow march through the wUdemess to Fort Edward on the Hudson, — with an excessive pro portion of noncombatants, including women and chUdren, and much superfluous baggage. Fort Edward was reached by the end of July but Burgoyne was now uncomfortably far from his base and he had been obliged to weaken his effective force by detaching part of it to secure his com munications. The army now had to get what suppUes it could from the surrounding country; but a detachment of Germans sent into Vermont for this purpose was over whelmed at Bennington by the New England miUtia under Bennington. Captain John Stark and lost several hundred men, a serious matter for an army already too smaU for the work in hand. Further advance into the enemy's country was evidently dangerous; but Burgoyne felt bound by his instructions and pushed on along the western bank of the Hudson. Meantime, the American forces had occupied a good American position at Bemis Heights, commanding the river road toward q^_ undei Albany. Here and in the adjacent country there were already twenty thousand fighting men, some of them regu lars, but a much larger number mUitia and other more or less temporary recruits, drawn chiefly from New England. The command of such an army was not easy, and General Schuyler, who had been in charge, did not get on weU with the New Englanders. Through then influence in Congress, 484 EUROPE AND AMERICA, 1776-1780 Schuyler was superseded by Horatio Gates, whose experi ence in the British army had given him a certain prestige. The position which Gates held was naturaUy strong and was scientifically fortified by Kosciusko, the PoUsh volunteer. Burgoyne's On September 19, the British moved forward again and Saratoga! at a sharp engagement foUowed, which is known sometimes as the battle of StiUwater and sometimes as the first battle of Freeman's Farm. Though not a clean-cut victory for either side, it had serious consequences for Burgoyne. His advance was stopped and he lost another large fraction of his effective force. His one hope was a strong cooperating expedition from New York; but no such expedition was undertaken untU two weeks after the battle of StiUwater, and then it did not get beyond Kingston, fifty mUes south of Albany. Meantime, Burgoyne made another attempt to break through, but was repulsed with heavy losses in the second battle of Freeman's Farm. He could not go forward, and, with the enemy closing in on all sides, it was soon too late to retreat. On October 17, 1777, the northern invasion came to a disastrous end with the surrender of Burgoyne's army at Saratoga. Valley Important as this victory was for the American cause, orse• the next few months were in many respects discouraging. Just before Christmas, Washington's army went into winter quarters at VaUey Forge. The record of that winter will always stand as one of the most painful in American history, not only because of the terrible hardships suffered by the army but even more so because those hardships were un necessary. There was, said Washington, "an eternal round of the most stupid management," by which "the public treasure is expended to no kind of purpose, whUe the men have been left to perish by inches with cold and nakedness." The American camp was surrounded by a rich countryside; but even men who were not loyaUsts sold their produce EUROPEAN DEVELOPMENTS 485 for Howe's hard money rather than take the almost worthless paper of the Continental Congress. The man who bore the brunt of these troubles could intrigues not even count on the hearty support of those he served. Washington. Congress and the army itself were divided into hostUe factions and many beUeved that Washington was not equal to his great task. Gates, who after his victory at Saratoga was transferred to the newly organized Board of War, became the nucleus of a discontented faction among the officers. Conspicuous among these malcontents was Thomas Conway, an Irish officer who had been a colonel in the French service and was now anxious for a high command in the American army. This faction gained a point when Conway was made inspector-general of the army; but public opinion on the whole supported Washington and in the spring of r778 the "Conway cabal" collapsed. To the men who suffered at VaUey Forge and to their European friends, the prospect must have seemed dark indeed. Fortu- menis?*" nately, however, events were then taking place in Europe which changed the whole character of the war and made the ultimate victory of the American cause almost inevitable. The British government was wining to offer new concessions in the hope of securing peace without the final disruption of the empire; but the time for compromises of this kind had long passed. Much more important were the develop ments in France and in Spain. For more than two years, these two great continental powers had foUowed with keen interest the widening breach between the two divisions of the EngUsh-speaking people. The French government had The attitude helped the United States so far as it could without getting and Spain, into a direct conflict with England. In Spain there were ws-w?- divided counsels and some misgivings about encouraging rebel colonies who might become dangerous rivals on the Gulf coast and in the Mississippi vaUey; but in general the Spaniards foUowed the French poUcy of furnishing money 486 EUROPE AND AMERICA, 1776-1780 Conditions in France. Vergennes. and suppUes to the Americans. Until the autumn of 1777, this cautious poUcy seemed to work fairly weU from the standpoint of the Bourbon governments. It was weakening the British on both sides of the Atlantic, and accompUshing this result without involving either France or Spain in the heavy cost of another world war. Now, however, the news of Burgoyne's surrender at Saratoga forced the diplomatists of Paris and Madrid to reconsider the whole problem in the Ught of this new fact. It was a compUcated diplomatic game in which the young repubhc was just beginning to take a hand. The center of interest was the French government, whose nominal head since 1774 was Louis XVT. This weU-meaning but mediocre gentleman inherited the autocratic traditions of his great ancestor, Louis XIV; but the real strength of the French monarchy had been seriously impaired. The civU government was corrupt and its finances were badly demoralized by reckless extravagance at court and a vicious revenue system. The national wealth was also diminished by antiquated restrictions on industry and commerce. Altogether the times were "out of joint" and Louis XVI was clearly not the man to set them right, though he had some able advisers, Uke the great economist, Turgot, who attempted thorough going reforms in finance, commerce, and industry, only to be driven from office through the influence of those who profited by the old abuses. Of the French ministers during this period, the most significant for American history was Charles, Count of Vergennes, the minister for foreign affairs. Vergennes was an experienced diplomat, thoroughly imbued with the tra ditions of French foreign poUcy and determined to rees tablish French leadership in European poUtics. To him the American revolt was interesting chiefly because it weakened England, thus readjusting the balance of power and improving the relative position of France. From this point of view, FRENCH POLICY 487 Vergennes wished to encourage the Americans and help them as much as possible without involving France pre maturely in war. On this pomt, however, there were sharp differences of opinion at the court. Among Uberal French men there was some real sympathy for the American cause, but this sentiment did not at first have much effect on the government. Others, including the King himseU, disliked the idea of aiding rebels against a legitimate sovereign, and conservative financiers wished to avoid policies which might The poUcy lead to an expensive war. In the end, however, Vergennes o£ secret aid- carried his point. With the cooperation of Beaumarchais, a versatile poUtician and playwriter, substantial help was given to the Americans through various agencies, including a commercial company, promoted by Beaumarchais, which shipped large quantities of munitions and other suppUes to the American rebels. Under ordinary conditions such a policy could not long a waiting be followed by a nominally neutral government without PoIicy- bringing it into the war. For the present, however, England preferred to avoid a complete break, and Lord Stormont, the British ambassador in Paris, limited himself to protests against unneutral acts. Vergennes also kept up the outward forms of neutraUty, avoiding, for instance, any official recog nition of the American union or its representatives in Paris. Before throwing off the mask and entering the war directly, he needed certain assurances, including a reasonable proba- bUity that the Americans would see the war through to the point of absolute independence. Another very desirable, if not essential, condition was the cooperation of Spain. So far as secret support of the rebels was concerned, French and Spanish and French poUcies were simUar; but the problem p^1^ of the Madrid government was more compUcated. For view. Vergennes, intervention was primarUy a question of European poUtics and the balance of power. Having Uttle interest in the revival of French colonial power in America, the devel- 488 EUROPE rAND AMERICA, 1 776-1 780 opment of a new nation across the Atlantic meant for him chiefly a check upon the British Empire. For Spain, colonial issues were more important, and she was anxious about the expansion of British naval and mUitary forces which might endanger her own colonies. The Spanish government was also annoyed because England seemed to be supporting Portugal in a South American boundary dispute. If war developed out of these issues, Florida might be recovered from Great Britain, and perhaps even CromweU's old con quest of Jamaica. Of course Spain also had important European interests at stake. There was always the hope of getting the British out of Gibraltar, and weakening then- hold on the Mediterranean. Possibly Portugal might again be brought under Spanish control. Attractive as these prospects were, the Spanish government was not sure that they were sufficiently so to justify another serious war. It seemed quite possible, indeed, that England might give up something to her old rival as the price of Spanish neu trality. In spite of these doubts, the early autumn of 1776 found both the Bourbon governments on the verge of war. The Declaration of Independence seemed to prove that the British colonies could no longer be satisfied within the empire, and Count Aranda, the Spanish ambassador at Paris, joined Vergennes in support of the war poUcy. Pres ently, however, came the news of Washington's defeat on Long Island and his retreat before Howe's advancing army. Vergennes therefore decided to wait. Franklin Under these somewhat discouraging circumstances Ben jamin Franklin began his long and distinguished service as the American envoy at Paris. He was then seventy years old, and there was something heroic in his wUUngness to take not only the ordinary risks of an ocean voyage, but also the chance of faUing into the hands of the enemy. Techni- caUy, FrankUn was one of three commissioners chosen by Congress to negotiate with France and other friendly powers; FRANKLIN IN FRANCE 489 but his associates, SUas Deane and Arthur Lee, were not very helpful to him. Unlike either of those men, Franklin brought to his work an estabUshed reputation and an extraor dinarily attractive personality. He liked the French people and they were enthusiastic about him. He had enough worldly wisdom to appreciate the importance of social conventions and yet enough independence about his own speech and conduct to give him a kind of picturesque interest as the representative of a younger and simpler society. Settling down at Passy, in the suburbs of Paris, he soon led an active social life, dining out "six days in seven" and "being treated with aU the poUteness of France and the apparent respect and esteem of aU ranks from the highest to the lowest." At a time when even the aristocracy was beginning to feel the influence of Uberal, not to say revolutionary, ideas, Franklin's personaUty estabUshed a new contact be tween the liberaUsm of the Old World and that of the New. Much of Franklin's energy went into a kind of propaganda Propaganda which contrasted the sins of the British with the virtues of a^j ^.0g. his own countrymen. British credit, he said, was crumbling; mtlon- but the Americans were frugal, honest people who could be trusted to pay their debts. Of course one great object of this propaganda was to secure loans, but it was also impor tant to secure definite recognition from the French govern ment. Such recognition Vergennes was not yet ready to 'give, but in an interview with the American commissioners soon after Franklin's arrival the French minister was as sympathetic as could reasonably be expected. Franklin Spain and also had some difficult negotiations with the Spanish am- states. bassador, Count Aranda. The Americans were willing to help Spain recover Florida and even to cooperate in an attack on the British West Indies; but there was one issue on which the two nations could not agree. That was the free navigation of the Mississippi, a matter of special impor tance to those Americans who, like Franklin, were deeply 49° EUROPE AND AMERICA, 1776-1780 Influence of Burgoyne'ssurrender. The Franco- American alliance. mterested in the settlement of the West. By urging this point, the United States was virtuaUy announcing a poUcy of expansion which was almost certam to conflict with the colonial ambitions of Spain on the Gulf coast and in the Mississippi valley. So matters stood untU, in the last weeks of 1777, the news of Burgoyne's surrender convinced Vergennes that "watch ful waiting " was no longer sufficient. The Americans seemed to have at least a good chance of winning their independ ence. Now or never was the time for France and Spain to strike the decisive blow which should break up the British Empire and secure the gratitude of the American people. "We must now," Vergennes argued, "either support the colonies or abandon them." If the alUance were not formed before England offered independence, France and Spain would lose the benefit to be derived from America and England could stUl control its commerce. In spite of Vergennes's arguments, the controlling influences at Madrid were now too cautious to foUow his lead. So he had to get on for a time without Spanish cooperation. ¦ i Vergennes's negotiations with the American commis sioners were now pushed forward rapidly and on February 6, 1778, two treaties were signed, one a general treaty of amity and commerce between France and the United States, and the other a formal affiance. A year later Spain decided to enter the war as an aUy of France; but the Spaniards could never bring themselves to a direct affiance with the United States. Considering all the circumstances, the French treaties were Uberal. Neither party was to make peace without the consent of the other, and for both parties the absolute independence of the United States was an indis pensable condition. The French expressly gave up any claim to their former possessions in North America and agreed to cooperate in the defense of any territory secured by the United States as a result of the war. In return the United THE FRENCH ALLIANCE 491 States made a simUar promise regarding the French posses sions in the West Indies. On this understanding the two powers agreed to act together both in the war and in the negotiations for peace. The real importance of the affiance cannot be measured Effect on by the mUitary and naval forces which France sent across government. the Atlantic, though these were considerable. The great fact was that the British government now had to face a serious danger near the very heart of the empire. The commerce-destroying operations of the American navy and American privateers could now be carried on freely from French ports, unhampered by neutrality regulations. Once more British supremacy in home waters was menaced by the French fleet, soon to be reenforced by that of Spain. AU in aU, this was one of the great crises in the history of the British Empire. NaturaUy the opposition leaders were bitter in their denunciation of the ministry which, having brought the country into the war, seemed so incompetent to carry it on. Some of the Whigs were already convinced that American independence was inevitable. Grave as the danger was, there were compensations. Pitt's last 0 . . . . appeal tor It was easier to rouse enthusiasm for a war with a rival the empire. European power than for the uninspiring struggle with revolted colonists who, in the opinion of many Englishmen, had some right on their side. Pitt now made a dramatic appeal to his countrymen for a great patriotic effort to hold the empire together, and there was some talk of getting him to form another war ministry; but he died almost im mediately afterwards. Even without first-rate leadership, the EngUsh nation braced itself for a supreme effort and in the end came out better than could reasonably have been expected. It was too late, however, to avoid a long series of reverses or to realize Pitt's ideal of a reunited empire. The new drain on England's resources resulting from 492 EUROPE AND AMERICA, 1776-1780 Effect of the alliance on British strategy. Battle of Monmouth. The French fleet in American waters. the war in Europe seriously handicapped British operations in America and this was perhaps the most important con tribution made by France to the winning of American independence. At the same time the direct intervention of the French navy in American waters brought some notable results. In the spring of 1778, a French fleet under Admiral d'Estaing saUed for America and the British soon had to take this new factor into account. Hitherto British command of the sea had been fairly complete; but now their West Indian colonies were threatened and troops had to be with drawn from the continent for service in the islands. It was also more difficult to insure regular communications by sea between the British armies at New York and Phila delphia. Accordingly, Sir Henry Clinton, who succeeded Howe as commander in chief, was ordered to concentrate his forces by evacuating PhUadelphia and transferring that part of the army to New York. In June, 1778, the order was carried out, to the great disappointment of the Penn sylvania loyaUsts, a large number of whom decided to take refuge with the British army in New York rather than remain at the mercy of their Whig countrymen. As Clinton marched across New Jersey, Washington prepared for another trial of strength. The discipline and morale of the army had been much improved, particularly through the efforts of Steuben, the new inspector-general, and Washington could attack with some prospect of success. On June 28, he feU upon Clinton's army at Monmouth; but the attack miscarried, largely through the misconduct of General Charles Lee, and Clinton got safely into New York. During this summer, the arrival of d'Estaing's fleet gave the Americans their first experience of joint action, and it was disappointing. Though his fleet was superior to that of Lord Howe, then holding New York harbor, d'Estaing decided not to risk an attack there. He agreed, CAMPAIGNS OF 1778 AND 1779 493 however, to cooperate with an American land force in an attack on the British post at Newport. The plan failed, partly because of the superior skiU and aggressiveness of Lord Howe, who foUowed d'Estaing to Newport. Before a decisive engagement was fought, a storm came up in which both fleets were badly damaged. Thereupon the French admiral withdrew his fleet to Boston for repairs and the expedition was abandoned. Whatever may be said for d'Estaing's course, it certainly made him unpopular with his American allies, especiaUy with the New Englanders. Notwithstanding this fiasco, British strategy was still much influenced by the presence of the French fleet, and when d'Estaing, after some months in the West Indies, came north again in 1779, the British garrison at Newport was Evacuation withdrawn. of Newport. After Burgoyne's defeat no important offensive opera- British tions were undertaken by the British in the northern states, ^The'south. though the coast towns suffered from naval and miUtary raids. They kept then grip on the city of New York and the lower Hudson, but the significant movements of the later years were in the South. Here the British relied largely on the loyaUsts, who were especiaUy strong in the Carolinas and Georgia, and hoped with their help to detach those states from the Union. For a time the new British policy was apparently successful. In December, 1778, Savannah was captured and, with the help of a detachment which Capture of came up from the new British province of East Florida, anTcharles- Georgia was conquered. In 1779 the Americans, with the ton- aid of the French fleet, tried to recover Savannah; but once more a promising plan of cooperation broke down, and shortly afterwards d'Estaing saUed for Europe. With the French fleet out of the way, the British could move then- troops more freely by sea, and in 1779 Clinton took seven thousand men from New York to Charleston, then held by a comparatively weak American force under General Lincoln. 494 EUROPE AND AMERICA, 1 776-1 780 Battle of Camden. Partisanwarfare. The turn of the tide. In May, 1780, Charleston was taken, together with Lincoln's army, and for the next two years the most important town on the southern seaboard was held by the British. A few weeks after the surrender of Charleston, Clinton returned to New York, but the British campaign for the conquest of South Carolina went forward under Corn- wallis. Almost everywhere the loyaUsts were triumphant and the Whigs discouraged. The state government almost ceased to exist and some of the Whigs were ready to take a neutral position for the remainder of the war. The Conti nental Congress sent reinforcements from the North under General Gates, but, though he had an able Ueutenant in General Kalb, he was overmatched by Cornwaffis. In August, 1780, the two armies met near Camden, South CaroUna, after night marches in which each hoped to sur prise the other, and the Americans were badly beaten. The Continental regulars fought weU under their brave commander, Kalb, who was fataUy wounded during the battle; but the militiamen, with Gates, took refuge in headlong flight. This disaster left the Americans with no real army in the Carolinas. The blunders of the British authorities at Charleston fortunately revived the Whig feeling, and there were able guerrilla leaders, like Marion, Sumter, and Pickens, who sometimes made life uncom fortable for the British and their loyalist aUies; but the British also had some capable officers for such work, notably Colonel Tarleton and Major Ferguson, the commander of a well-known regiment of loyaUst volunteers. Altogether these were dark days for the southern Whigs. It was at this critical moment, when the CaroUna sea board seemed hopelessly lost, that the West took up the fight and revived the failing courage of the Whigs by striking one of the most effective blows in the whole history of the devolution. How this came about is a story which must be reserved for the next chapter. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 4gj BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES Channing, United States, III, 229-320. Van Tyne, American General Revolution, chs. VII-XIII, XVI. Fiske, American Revolution, I, references- chs. V-VII; II, chs. VIII-X, XIII. Fisher, Struggle for American Independence, I, chs. XLIII-LII; II, chs. LIII- LXXXIV. Lecky, American Revolution. Hart, Contemporaries, II, chs. XXXI-XXXIII. Moore, CoUected Diary of the American Revolution. sources. References on Washington in ch. XX. Adams, C. F., Studies, MUitary Military and Diplomatic, chs. II-IV. Avery, E. M., United States, hist0'y- V, VI (exceUent iUustrations). Ford, W. C, Washington, I, chs. XII-XVI; II, chs. I, II. Fortescue, J. W., History of the British Army, III, chs. VIII-XVII. Greene, F. V., Revolutionary War, chs. II-VI. Winsor, America, VI, chs. IV, V. Mahan, A. T., Influence of Sea Power, 1660-1783, 330-376, Naval and his Major Operations of the Navies in the War of American op^110118-' Independence, chs. I-VI. Bancroft, United States (author's last revision), especiaUy V, European pt. IV, chs. X, XVI-XXI. Corwin, E. S., French Policy and the ^the"8 American Alliance (exceUent; cf. Van Tyne in Am. Hist. Review, French XXI, 528-541). Tower, C, Lafayette in the American Revolu tion (detaUed narrative). Hazard, B., Beaumarchais and the American Revolution. French accounts in Lavisse, E., Histoire de France, LX, bk. II, pp. 91-126, and Doniol, H., Participation de la France a VUablissement des Etats Unis (standard, with sources). Franklin's letters in Writings (Smyth edition), VII, VIII; Sources. very readable. Wharton, F., Revolutionary Diplomatic Cor respondence, II. Westernphases of the Revolution. Frontier communities.Vermont. The South- ' westr Ken tucky. CHAPTER XXLT INDEPENDENCE WON When the Revolution broke out, it was mainly the work of men who hved within a hundred mUes of the coast, and the number of permanent settlers who had actuaUy crossed the mountains was insignificant. Before the war ended, however, the frontiersmen on the eastern and west ern slopes of the Appalachians made some real contributions to the American cause, and even the Mississippi vaUey was the scene of some notable events. When actual fighting began, in 1775, the air was fuU of plans for new colonies, or commonwealths, independent of the existing colonial governments. In the north, the Vermont frontiersmen who helped to defeat Burgoyne's army were troubled by the conflicting claims of New York and New Hampshire, and tried to solve the problem by organizing a state government of their own. In 1778 they adopted their first state constitution, though they had to wait thir teen years before they were admitted to the Union. The German settlers on the Mohawk seem to have had no such aspirations; but in Pennsylvania new settlements were forming around Fort Pitt, which it was proposed to combine with others in the present limits of West Virginia and eastern Kentucky, in order to form the new colony of Westsylvania. In central Kentucky was the colony of Transylvania, promoted by the North Carolina speculator, Richard Henderson, with the cooperation of Daniel Boone, the most notable figure among the pioneers and trail makers of his day. The Kentuckians gave up for a time their hope 496 THE FRONTIERSMEN 497 of a separate government and in 1777 were organized as a county of Virginia, which claimed this territory under the charter of 1609. It was difficult, however, for the Virginia government to keep in touch with these outlying settlements and to protect them against the Indians. In the north- Beginnings eastern corner of what is now Tennessee, near the head- of Tamessee- waters of the Tennessee River, a handful of frontiersmen from Virginia and North Carolina adopted, just before the Revolution, the so-caUed "Watauga Compact" and, Uke the early New Englanders, based upon it a rudimentary kind of self-government. Migration was not stopped by the war, and in 1780 a new and quite isolated settlement was formed on the Cumberland River, the beginning of what is now Nashville. These Tennessee settlements were within the charter limits of North Carolina and were brought under the jurisdiction of that state, though here, as in Kentucky, the relation was not whoUy satisfactory. The frontiersmen differed among themselves about the Whigs and issues of the Revolution. AU along the line from New York thTborder. to South Carolina, Georgia, and the Floridas, British agents, Uke the Johnsons in New York and Stuart in the South, had buUt up a strong loyaUst influence among the traders and the Indians. Tories were especiaUy numerous among the recent Scotch immigrants, particularly the Highlanders. Over against these Tory frontiersmen may be set such Whig groups as the Green Mountain pioneers in Vermont, the Germans of the Mohawk vaUey, and a large proportion of the Irish and Scotch-Irish from Pennsylvania southward. Nowhere was the feeling between Whig and Tory so bitter or the fighting so savage as among these border people. In dealing with the Indians the Americans were handi- The Indian capped in various ways. It took time to bund up an organ ization as effective as that developed by some of the British agents. In some respects, too, the attitude of the Indians reminds one of that taken by them during the last French problem. 498 INDEPENDENCE WON British in fluence in the West. Borderwarfare. [Difficulties of frontier defense. war. In that conffict the Indians had rightly regarded the French, whose interests were chiefly in trading or missions, as less objectionable than the English, who began with hunting and trading but were more likely to develop per manent settlements and graduaUy crowd the Indians out. Now the r61e of the French was partly taken over by the British; in fact, many old Canadian voyageurs were working for British companies. It was the American frontiersmen, on the contrary, who now represented the slow but sure advance of white settlements into the old Indian hunting grounds. The Montreal merchants, protected by the Brit ish navy, could bring in a steady supply of European goods, including arms and ammunition, to be exchanged for peltries; for the Americans this was much less easy. So the bulk of the Indian trade was held by the British merchants, and with trade went a large amount of political influence. From Montreal this influence reached out far to the westward, with garrisons and trading posts at Oswego, Niagara, Detroit, and Mackinaw, on the Great Lakes; also at Vincennes, Kaskaskia, and Natchez, in the Mississippi vaUey. The Iroquois of the North, the Cherokees of the South, and most of the western tribes, thus kept within the British sphere of influence, were constantly raiding the pioneer settlements, from the Mohawk vaUey to the lonely clearings of Kentucky and Tennessee. Among the British officers most active in promoting this border warfare was Henry HamUton, commander of the post at Detroit. Many Americans, not only frontiersmen and land specu lators but also seaboard merchants, were eager to curb British influence in the West and protect American interests in the fur trade; but the problem was far from simple. After aU, independence had to be won, if at aU, on the eastern side of the AUeghenies, and it was impossible to detach large forces for the conquest of the West. Now and then, however, some tragic incident occurred which made strenuous THE NORTHWEST 499 action necessary; as, for instance, the terrible massacre of 1778 in the Wyoming vaUey of Pennsylvania. The next year Washington sent into the Iroquois country a retaliatory expedition which was fairly effective; but it was not the end of border warfare. Meantime, notable events were taking place in the Mis- Clark's sissippi valley. In 1777, the Kentuckians, who had suffered ^^tion severely from Indian raids, for which they held the British IIIinois J country. largely responsible, were eager to strike back at the British posts in the Northwest. Accordingly one of their ablest and most daring leaders, George Rogers Clark, went to Virginia and secured the backing of that government. In the spring of 1778 he led some of his feUow backwoodsmen down the Ohio to the eastern edge of the IUinois country, and then overland to the old French settlement of Kaskaskia. The regular garrisons had been withdrawn from this neigh borhood; but Kaskaskia, then held with a few miUtia by a French officer in the British service, was stUl an important center of British influence. This post was easUy captured by Clark on the night of July 4, 1778, and this stroke was soon foUowed by the taking of Vincennes on the Wabash. Clark's daring move naturaUy provoked retaliation, and The capture in the winter of 1778-1779 a British expedition from Detroit, o£ Vincennes- commanded by Colonel HamUton, recovered Vincennes and threatened the Virginians at Kaskaskia. Clark determined to strike first, and in February, 1779, made a heroic march across the flooded prairies to Vincennes. Taken off his guard, HamUton was forced to surrender and was presently sent to Virginia as a prisoner of war. These conquests had been made, not strictly for the United States, but for Vir ginia, which now claimed jurisdiction under its charter of 1609 and organized the new "county of IUinois." American activities in the Mississippi vaUey naturaUy Spanish ac- brought out the compUcated problem of relations with Spain, southwest. , In 1778 the Spaniards held the west bank of the Mississippi 500 INDEPENDENCE WON Frontiersmen in the southerncampaigns. KingsMountain. from St. Louis to New Orleans. East of New Orleans along the Gulf were the British provinces of West and East Florida, acquired from France and Spain during the last war. Re senting this British occupation of the Gulf coast, the Span iards were willing to help the rebellious colonies by shipping mUitary suppUes up the Mississippi, from which they could go on up the Ohio as far as Fort Pitt. On the outbreak of war between Great Britain and Spain, in 1779, the Spaniards, under the command of Galvez, their governor at New Orleans, attacked the posts in West Florida, taking first those on the lower Mississippi, then MobUe, and finaUy, in i78r, Pensacola. The successes of the Americans in the Mississippi vaUey and of the Spaniards on the Gulf coast weakened British prestige; but they also made more evident the real conflict of interests between Spain and the United States. These developments in the West seem to have Uttle to do with the movements of British and American forces on the Atlantic seaboard; but in the southern campaigns of 1780 the "men of the western waters" were brought into closer touch with the main operations of the war. In the early autumn of that year these sturdy pioneers were able to strike a blow which, coming as it did soon after the disaster of Camden, proved to be a kind of turning point in the whole history of the war in the South. When Cornwaffis had disposed of Gates's army and was moving on to the conquest of North CaroUna, he felt the need of larger forces. Accordingly he sent Major Patrick Ferguson, one of his best officers, to gather up recruits among the loyaUst mountaineers. Ferguson was fairly successful in drawing the Tories; but he also aroused the antagonism of the Whig frontiersmen and soon found that he had blundered into a kind of hornets' nest. At Kings Mountain, on the eastern edge of the mountain country, he was surrounded by a swarm of backwoodsmen, many of whom had come from the new settlements in Tennessee. Ferguson and his loyalist A CRITICAL TIME SOI supporters fought bravely, but he himself was killed and his command practicaUy destroyed. The numbers engaged in this battle — not far from a thousand on each side — were quite out of proportion to its real importance. Corn- waffis's plan for the North Carolina campaign had to be held up and the Whigs got a chance to rally for a new stand under more effective leadership. This ray of Ught came in one of the darkest moments of A critical the war. The most startling event of the year 1780 was, fold's perhaps, the success of the British in corrupting Benedict treason. Arnold, previously regarded by Washington as one of his best officers. Arnold's plot to surrender the fortress of West Point on the Hudson fortunately faUed, though he himself escaped and soon began fighting his old friends. The execu tion of Major Andre, the unlucky British agent in this ugly transaction, has always excited sympathy; but it was strictly in accordance with the rules of war. More serious than this spectacular incident was the increasing weakness of the revolutionary government. It was durmg this year that Washington wrote some of his most pessimistic letters. Weakness of "I see," he wrote, "one head graduaUy changing into federation.' thirteen . . . one army branching into thirteen." The Articles of Confederation were not yet ratified and Congress was stUl clinging to unbusinesslike methods. The army, poorly fed and clothed, was in an ugly mood and in the foUowing winter there was a serious mutiny among the Pennsylvania troops. GraduaUy, however, the skies began to clear. In March, Progress in 1781, the Articles of Confederation were adopted through federation"1 the ratifying act of Maryland, which had hitherto held adopted. off because of the fear that Virginia and a few other states would monopolize the western lands. The adoption of the Articles changed very Uttle the practical working of the Continental government but at least gave it a kind of legal basis. More important in its immediate results was the 502 ESTDEPENDENCE WON tardy decision of Congress to reorganize the chief executive departments — war, treasury, foreign affairs — each with a single responsible officer at its head. The ablest of these department heads was undoubtedly Robert Morris, who was able to make at least some improvements in the finances. The war in The chief miUtary developments during the first six the South. months of 1 781 were in the South, where CornwaUis was getting ready to resume his advance into North Carolina. The American army now gathering to oppose him was not an altogether hopeful organization, composed as it was of a few hundred regulars and a rather uncertain militia; but it had one great asset in the person of its new general, Nathanael Nathanael Greene. For many months Greene had served reene. loyaUy and efficiently as the quartermaster-general of the Continental army; but he was too much of a fighter to like such work indefinitely, and he took up energeticaUy the southern command, for which he was chosen by Washington. His chief lieutenant was Daniel Morgan, one of the best officers in the Continental army; but he also had the cooperation of several successful partisan leaders, and the cavalry, though smaU in numbers, had an important part in the campaign. Though CornwaUis's army was stronger, he had one serious handicap: almost every forward move increased the difficulty of keeping up communications with the seaboard, on which he was largely dependent for suppUes. Greene understood very well the enemy's weak ness in this respect, and he made the most of it. The Carolina On the opening of the new year Greene's Uttle army was campaigns . . . . . of 1781. ni two mam sections, both near the boundary between North and South CaroUna. The main army, under his own command, was at Cheraw, South CaroUna, on the Great Pedee River, a few mUes south of the state line. The other division, under Morgan, was over a hundred mUes to the west ward looking after some British posts in that neighborhood. THE CAROLINA CAMPAIGNS OF 1781 503 Here, at a place caUed the Cowpens, Morgan was attacked The in January, 1 781, by Colonel Tarleton, the ablest and most CowPeos- ruthless of the British cavalry commanders in the South. Fortunately Morgan was equal to the emergency, and Tarleton's force was almost annihUated. Having disposed of Tarleton, Morgan now fell back before CornwaUis's army to join General Greene; but their combined forces were Greene's insufficient to cope with the British and so they steadUy retreat- retreated northward, drawing Cornwaffis after them. By the middle of February this retreat had carried the two armies across North Carolina to the Virginia border, where Greene took up his position behind the Dan River and Cornwaffis gave up the pursuit. Though Cornwaffis had temporarUy driven the Americans Later cam- out of North Carolina and might claim in a sense to have ^^ ° conquered the state, his position was not at aU satisfactory. By persistent running away, Greene had drawn the British far from their base and consolidated his own scattered forces. Now he was ready to change his tactics and take the offensive. Returning to North Carolina, he met Corn waffis at Guilford Courthouse, and though the battle taken by itself may be caUed a victory for the British, their loss was so heavy and their whole position after it so pre carious that Cornwaffis retired to the seaboard at WUming ton. Shortly afterwards he left the Carolinas, in order to join Arnold's smaU British army in Virginia. With Corn- waUis out of the way, Greene returned to South Carolina, where Lord Rawdon, with Charleston as his principal base, was trying to hold a few raUying points for the loyalists of the back country. Between May and September there were several engagements in this region, most of them either British victories or drawn battles; but the net result was that the British left the upcountry loyalists to their fate British and contented themselves with holding Charleston. Except t0 the for the Charleston garrison and that of Wilmington, the seaboard. S°4 INDEPENDENCE WON GreatBritain'sisolation. Armedneutrality. War with the Dutch. Carolinas were practicaUy freed from British control. Con sidered in relation to the world war of which they formed a part, these encounters, in which the aggregate numbers engaged rarely exceeded five thousand men, seem petty enough; but they helped to cloud stUl further the gloomy prospect then unfolding before the British pubhc. In Europe there was growing antagonism between Great Britain and the continental powers which had so far remained neutral. With the beffigerents on both sides doing then- best to destroy enemy commerce, it was almost inevitable that neutrals also should suffer. There was no clear agree ment about neutral rights and duties, and this led to many complaints, especiaUy against the British navy, which generaUy kept the upper hand in European waters. The complaints were not, however, aU on one side. England was annoyed by the sheltering of American war vessels in Dutch ports and the development of an immense munition trade between the Dutch West Indies and the United States. In these controversies nearly aU the European powers be came involved in one way or another. Finally, under the leadership of the great Russian empress, Catherine H, a formidable group of neutral governments, including the Scandinavian countries, Prussia, and the German Empire, organized a league caUed the "Armed NeutraUty." Though the league was formed to defend neutral rights against beffigerents generaUy, it was aimed chiefly at Great Britain, principaUy because France was willing to accept the prin ciple that "free ships make free goods," whUe the British insisted on their right to seize enemy property even under neutral flags. In the case of the Dutch Repubhc, the trouble with Great Britain developed by 1781 into open war. Thus Great Britain was almost isolated, with the three chief maritime powers of Europe against her and most of the others more or less unfriendly. In this dangerous isolation England's chief reliance as THE WAR ON THE SEA 505 usual was on her navy; but even this was seriously chal- Naval lenged. In 1779 the French and Spanish fleets appeared ^^to in force off the British Isles and for a time there was real fear of an invasion. From this particular danger, England was saved largely by the mismanagement of the aUied fleets; but the destruction of British shipping sent up the rates of marine insurance. In the work of commerce de stroying the Americans had a large part. In 1779 Franklin wrote of one privateer which in three months had taken, ransomed, burned, or destroyed more than thirty British vessels. It was in this year also that Paul Jones won his famous fight with the Serapis. The next year was one of alternate victory and defeat for the British navy. It began with the successful campaign of Admiral Rodney on the coast of Spain, where he defeated the Spanish fleet off Cape Vincent, besides reheving the besieged British garrison at Gibraltar. Later in the year Rodney took his fleet to the West Indies, but faUed to bring on a decisive engagement with the cautious French admiral. Meantime the enemy had succeeded in capturing a great transport fleet bound for the West Indies with British troops and supplies for the island garrisons. The naval historian, Mahan, describes this as "the greatest single blow that British commerce had received in war during the memory of men then living." The entry of HoUand into the war, though adding to in the West the number of England's enemies, gave Rodney's West es' I?81- Indian fleet a new opportunity. The Dutch West Indies were no longer protected by a neutral flag and in February, 1781, the island of St. Eustatius, described as practicaUy "a mUitary and naval arsenal for the American revolutionists and their allies," was taken by the British. A few months later, however, this victory was partly offset by the French seizing one of the smaUer British islands, and the summer passed without a real test of strength between the opposing fleets. So matters stood when Admiral de Grasse, the new 5°6 INDEPENDENCE WON Admiralde Grasse. French reSn- forcements; Rochambeau. Problems of the allies. commander in chief of the French fleets in American waters, was caUed to cooperate with the affied armies in what proved to be the last important operation of the Revolutionary War. During the spring of 178 1, Washington's main army was on the upper Hudson, watching the British in the city of New York. The American outlook was still clouded. The French general, Rochambeau, wrote as late as June, 1781, that Washington had "but a handful of men"; that America had "been driven to bay" and aU her resources were "giving out at once." So far as direct participation in the continental campaigns was concerned, the French affiance had been disappointing and the French government, already embarrassed by its financial contributions to the American cause, felt that the United States was not carry ing its fair share of the burden. Fortunately, this mutual irritation was overcome, largely through the steady good sense of Franklin and the efforts of Lafayette, who made a long visit to France in 1779. New grants were made to' the United States from the French treasury, and in the early summer of 1780 five thousand French regulars landed at Newport under the command of Count Rochambeau, a veteran of the Seven Years' War and one of the most distinguished officers of the French army. More than a year passed, however, before the French troops were effectively used. For most of that time the British kept their superiority in American waters and were able to blockade the French at Newport harbor. Meantime the American and French commanders were exchanging ideas. Washington wished' to attack New York, where Clinton's army had been weakened by the sending of troops to the southward. In July, i78r, the main body of the French army joined the Americans on the Hudson; but it was doubtful whether the aUies were strong enough to dislodge Clinton from his strong position. YORKTOWN 507 At this critical moment, the aUied commanders found a a new new opportunity in Virginia, where smaU British detach- 2?^^ ments under Generals Arnold and PhUUps had just been reenforced by the arrival of Cornwaffis. For a time this shifting of the British strategy from the Carolinas to Virginia seemed to work fairly weU. The Americans under Lafay ette were not strong enough to face Cornwaffis, who was sure the "boy" could not long escape him. In June, 1781, Tarleton broke up the state legislature, then sitting at CharlottesvUle, on the eastern slope of the Blue Ridge, compelling Governor Thomas Jefferson to beat a hasty retreat from his neighboring estate of MonticeUo. HumUiat- ing as this experience was to the Virginians, Cornwaffis soon found that he had reaUy gained very Uttle. Lafay ette was hard pushed at times but always managed to get away. Finally, in accordance with instructions from Clinton at New York, Cornwallis retired to the peninsula between the York and the James rivers. On the northern side of ComwalUs at this narrow strip, at the Uttle vffiage of Yorktown, Cornwaffis Yorktown- settled down, fortifying himself from attack by land and counting on the navy to keep open his communications by sea. Here he was fairly safe so long as his friends controUed the sea. If, however, that control were interrupted, his position might become very dangerous. It was on this famous old Virginia peninsula that Washing- The ton, after long years of patient waiting, found at last his campaign. supreme opportunity. Fortunately also Admiral de Grasse, in response to urgent appeals from Washington and Rocham beau, had just decided to bring his fleet north to Chesapeake Bay. Whatever was done, however, had to be done quickly, for De Grasse explained that his stay would be short and the troops which he was to bring with him would be needed for other service during the winter. So in the latter part of August, with a warning to Lafayette not to let Cornwaffis escape from the trap in which he had placed himseff, 5<>8 INDEPENDENCE WON Victory of the French fleet. Surrender of ComwalUs. The war not yet over. Washington began a rapid overland march from the Hudson valley to Virginia. He had with him a handful of Conti nental troops, about two thousand in all, and four thousand French regulars under Rochambeau. About a month later the allied armies were closing in upon the British lines at Yorktown. On August 30, a few days after Washington left for the South, De Grasse's fleet anchored within the capes of Chesapeake Bay. A week later, a British fleet under Admiral Graves appeared off the Capes, but after a sharp engagement was forced to withdraw. So the French kept their station, hemming in the British army by sea as the aUied armies were about to close in by land. In the last days of September, the allies began their attack on the British lines, and on October 19, after a siege of about three weeks, Cornwaffis surrendered his whole command. Two days later Graves's fleet again appeared, this time bringing General Clinton with reenforcements for the besieged army; but they were too late to prevent the greatest disaster which had come to the British cause since Burgoyne's defeat at Saratoga. For this crowning victory, the Americans were largely indebted to the French alliance. Not to speak of the financial support which kept the American armies in the field, about two thirds of the regular troops engaged in the siege were French, and without the cooperation of the French fleet the whole operation would have been im possible. In Europe and America the effect of the surrender at Yorktown was generaUy recognized as decisive; but the war was not yet over and there were many anxious months ahead. More than thirty thousand British soldiers still remained in the United States, chiefly at New York with smaUer garrisons at Charleston and Savannah. Even in this hour of victory the American government seemed almost at the end of its resources. Although Washington urged the END OF THE WAR 509 need of continued effort in order to secure a satisfactory peace, it was hard to overcome the general weariness and apathy. Notwithstanding the ratification of the Articles of Confederation, supplies of money and men still depended on the good wffi of individual states and only a fraction of the money called for was actuaUy paid in. Fortunately, the EngUsh people also were tired of the EngUsh war, and the disaster at Yorktown convinced nearly every- turning one that there was no chance of subduing the colonies. The °«amst the war. Kmg was stubborn and the North ministry was held to gether for a few months longer; but the logic of events was too much, even for George in. For six months after Yorktown the tide continued to run strongly against the British. In the West Indies they lost not only their recent conquest of St. Eustatius, but even some of their own islands. Across the Atlantic, British prestige in the Medi terranean was weakened by the loss of Minorca. Economic developments were also discouraging; shipping was stUl being destroyed on a large scale, expenditures were steadUy rising, new loans were needed, and the public credit was shaken. AU these things naturaUy strengthened the opposition party. Even former supporters of the ministry had been turned against it by increasing evidences of corrupt and inefficient administration. Long before Yorktown, the gov ernment majorities had begun to go down; as early as 1780 the House of Commons passed an often-quoted resolution, declaring that the power of the Crown had increased, was increasing, and ought to be diminished. After Yorktown the attack was pushed with new vigor, and by March, 1782, the House of Commons had committed itseU squarely FaU of against the continuance of the war. Lord North gave up ^k^11 the fight and the King had to accept his resignation. The new ministry was headed by the same Lord Rock- Liberal ingham who had proposed the repeal of the Stamp Act; the™^ m several of his associates were also known for then Uberal nnmstry. 510 INDEPENDENCE WON ideas on American questions. Among them were such men as Burke, the eloquent advocate of conciliation in 1774 and 1775; Charles James Fox, who had gone to great lengths in expressing his sympathy with the American revolution ists; and Lord Shelburne, the ablest member of the Uttle group that foUowed the elder Pitt. With such a government Americans could negotiate with some chance of mutual understanding. It was also fortunate for the new ministry that the naval war began to turn in favor of the British. In AprU, 1782, a French fleet which was expected to combine with the Spaniards in an attack on Jamaica was beaten by Admiral Rodney, whose victory restored British superiority in the West Indies. The thirteen colonies were indeed lost; but so far as her European enemies were concerned, England could look forward to peace terms more favorable than had seemed probable only a few months before. BD3LIOGRAPHICAL NOTES General Channing, United States, III, 300-342. Van Tyne, American references. R^glution, chs. XV, XVII. Winsor, America, VI, 447-467, and chs. VI-LX. Fisher, Struggle for American Independence, H, chs. LXXXIV-CV. Fiske, American Revolution, H, chs. XI, XII, XIV, XV. Bancroft, United States, V, pt. IV, chs. XXH-XXIII, XXVI-XXVIII; pt. V, chs. I-IV. Lecky, American Revolution. Sources. Hart, Contemporaries, II, ch. XXXIV. Moore, Diary of the American Revolution. Washington, Writings (Ford edition), LX. Franklin, Writings (Smyth edition), VIII. The last Fortescue, J. W., History of the British Army, IH, chs. XVH- campaigns. ^ Ford) w c Washington, II, chs. I-HI. Greene, F. V., Revolutionary War, chs. VII-VIH. Greene, G. W., Nathanael Greene. McCrady, South Carolina in the Revolution, I, II (detailed accounts of partisan warfare; cf. Channing, United States, HI, P- 343)- Corwin, French Policy and the American Alliance. Jusserand, BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 51 1 J. J., With Americans of Past and Present Days (essays on Rocham- French co- beau and Washington). Tower, C, Lafayette. Trevelyan, G. O., g^""- George III and Charles Fox (Whig view of English politics). poUtics and Mahan, Influence of Sea Power on History, 1660-1783, chs. X, XI. *ar- Jameson, J. F., St. Eustatius in the American Revolution {Am. Hist. Review, VIII, 683-708). Mahan, Major Operations, especiaUy chs. VII-X. AUen, G. W., Naval Naval History, II. De Koven, A. F., Paul Jones, especiaUy I, w ch. X-XIV. Alvord, Centennial History of Illinois, I, chs. XV, XVI. Hender- The West. son, A., Creative Forces in Western Expansion {Am. Hist. Review, XX, 86-107) and his Conquest of the Old Southwest, chs. XI-XVIII. Roosevelt, Winning of the West. Thwaites, Daniel Boone. Turner, Western State Making in the Revolutionary Era {Am. Hist. Review, I, 70-87). Thwaites, R. G., and KeUogg, L. P., Revolution on the Upper Sources on Ohio and Frontier Defence on the Upper Ohio. J. A. James, Clark * e L Papers (IUinois State Historical Library, Collections). CHAPTER XXIII REPUBLICAN DIPLOMACY, 1779 TO 1784 Informal negotiations;Hartley and Franklin. TheRockinghamministry. Shelburne's overtures. Before the faU of the North ministry, the British govern ment had made several proposals looking towards peace with the colonies on some basis short of complete independ ence. There were also a few EngUsh Uberals who hoped and worked for reconcffiation throughout the war, among them David Hartley, a member of Parliament and an old friend of Franklin's. Hartley visited Paris in 1778 and tried to interest the American envoy in his peace plans; but Franklin pointed out that Congress, having committed itself to common action with the French, could not desert its new aUies or make any terms short of independence. Notwithstanding this disappointment, Hartley continued his friendly efforts and, during the winter of 1781-1782, after a conference with Lord North, he suggested a kind of ar mistice for a term of years. This suspension of hostiUties he proposed to use for friendly conferences about the future relations of the two countries. Of course, Franklin's original objection appUed equaUy weU to this new proposal. Even after the Rockingham ministry came in, there were difficulties to be overcome; but the conditions were much more favorable. In March, 1782, Burke wrote to FrankUn expressing his hope of a "speedy peace between the two branches of the EngUsh nation." A little later Franklin, having been told that Shelburne would be glad to hear from him, sent a courteous note recalling their old acquaintance and expressing his satisfaction with Shelburne's recent appointment. Starting with this informal correspondence, 5" AMERICAN COMMISSIONERS 513 Shelburne, who was now secretary of state for the colonies, graduaUy prepared the way for more regular diplomatic intercourse. Meantime, the Continental Congress had opened the American way for negotiations by appointing commissioners and STand. formulating peace terms. In 1779 John Adams was sent ***" ?>-. abroad with definite instructions as to certain points which ° were regarded as essential. This first mission did not make much headway, however, partly because there was then no prospect of the British granting independence, and partly because Adams did not get on well with the French. Ver gennes and his associates thought the Americans were asking too much and considered Adams too aggressive in his attitude toward their own government. So in 1781 the French minister at PhUadelphia persuaded Congress to change its action in three important particulars. First, Adams was to share his authority with four other com missioners — Franklin, John Jay of New York, Henry Laurens, a South Carolinian who was for a time president of the Continental Congress, and Thomas Jefferson; secondly, the commissioners, though stUl required to insist on independ ence, were given more discretion in other respects; thirdly, they were to make " the most candid and confidential com munications upon aU subjects" with the French ministers, taking no step in the negotiations "without their knowl edge and concurrence." Of the five men named by Congress, Jefferson declined FrankUn. the appointment, and Laurens, then a prisoner in London, arrived in Paris too late to have much influence on the negotiations. The three who reaUy counted, therefore, were FrankUn, Adams, and Jay. Of these three men, Franklin undoubtedly stood first in experience, in tact, and in appreciation of European and especiaUy French points of view. More than twenty years of his long life had been spent in Europe, where he had a prestige and a wide 514 REPUBLICAN DLPLOMACY, 1779-1784 personal acquaintance which were most useful to his coun try. Realizing more keenly than his coUeagues how much his country had depended on French support, he was more anxious to maintain relations of mutual confidence between the two nations. He was now seventy-six years old and not so active as his younger coUeagues; but even his critics had to admit that his mind was keen and vigorous. John Adams. In the spring of 1782, John Adams was nearing the end of a successful campaign for financial support and diplo matic recognition from the Dutch government. Before he left the Hague to join Franklin in Paris, he had got from the Dutch not only considerable loans, but also the first American treaty with any European government since the French alliance of 1778. Adams was justly proud of this achievement, aU the more because his methods were not those recommended to him by the French government. He beUeved that his success was a striking vindication of independent American diplomacy. Unfortunately, Adams was too much inclined to emphasize his own achievements and not always generous in his references to his older col league. If Franklin was too optimistic about French diplo macy, Adams was at times oversuspicious, and tact was John Jay. certainly not his strong point. John Jay, the youngest of these three coUeagues, was first known as a moderate leader of the New York Whigs; but for several years he had taken special interest in foreign affairs, first in Congress and then, since 1779, as American envoy to Spain. There he spent two exasperating years without securing even dig nified recognition as the representative of an independent government. This humiUating experience gave Jay a pessi mistic view of Bourbon diplomacy in general. Unlike Franklin, he did not like the French people, agreeing with Adams that the commissioners should emancipate them selves as much as possible from French tutelage. From the French point of view there was some question THE FRENCH VIEW 515 just how independent the United States had a right to be The French at that time. The war was, after all, not merely an affair v°em71; of between Great Britain and the United States. To the success of her aUy France had made large contributions in sea power, in soldiers, and in money lent or given outright. Even now Robert Morris was asking France for new loans, which in his opinion were made necessary not so much by the poverty of the American people as by their unwilling ness to shoulder a fair share of the burden. This demand, too, was made at a time when the desperate condition of the French treasury had become generally known. So far, the United States seemed to be the chief beneficiary of the affiance; was it not fair, then, that America should pay some attention to French interests and the French point of view? Unfortunately the problem was stiU further complicated The French by the fact that France, the aUy of the United States, was Spain?6 ™ also the aUy of Spain; and this latter alliance, in which the United States had no direct part, was nevertheless also a factor in the winning of American independence. To secure the Spanish affiance, Vergennes had made promises which had to be considered in the final settlement. Though the terms of the treaties which the French had made with the United States and with Spain were not necessarily incompati ble, there was a real conffict of interests between Spain and the I United States, especiaUy in the Mississippi valley. Vergennes probably meant to keep faith with both his aUies; but, in view of the moderate demands made by his own country, he also felt justified in trying to check what he considered the unreasonable pretensions of either Spain or the United States. The Spaniards were indifferent and at times hostUe to the United States, and the Americans felt simUarly toward Spain; but Vergennes had to think of both. So matters stood when the overtures of the British government were clearing the way for formal negotiations. These negotiations were, however, delayed by differences 5i6 REPUBLICAN DIPLOMACY, 1779-1784 Shelburne's views. Oswald and Franklin. Dissensionsin the British cabinet. of opinion inside the British government. Within the Rockingham ministry there were then two distinct groups, headed respectively by Shelburne, secretary of state for the colonies, and Fox, secretary for foreign affairs. Of these two men Shelburne was undoubtedly much the better in formed about America; but, Uke his old leader, Pitt, he was deeply interested in preserving the empire and hoped almost to the last that the colonies might accept something less than absolute separation. Shelburne was undoubtedly a very able man, who as the French diplomatist, Rayneval, once said, took " a broad view of affairs "; but he had a certain reserve which led many of his contemporaries, both European and American, to doubt his sincerity. Shelburne now saw that American independence would probably have to be conceded in the end, but he stUl thought of the Americans as colonists and wished to keep the negotiations in his own colonial office. He also hoped for close trade relations with the United States. A few weeks after he took office, he foUowed up his first approaches to Franklin by sending to Paris a confidential agent, named Richard Oswald. Oswald was a Scotch merchant, who had been in America and had some business interests there; he was not a professional diplomat and was sometimes sur prisingly frank in acknowledging the strength of his opponents' case. He found Franklin willing to talk and got from him a plan of settlement, which included, among other things, the cession of Canada to the United States. Meantime, the British government as a whole had no definite program. ParUament was considering a biU to authorize negotiations with the revolted colonies, and there were also some strenuous debates in the cabinet. Unlike Shelburne, Fox took independence for granted and thought that negotiations with the United States, as with any foreign government, should be handled by him as foreign secretary. Accordingly he too had his agent in Paris, who, THE SHELBURNE MINISTRY 517 though primarUy concerned with the French government, also conferred with Franklin. Thus the rivalry of the two secretaries was reflected in their agents at Paris. Evidently these two departments could not be aUowed to work indefi nitely at cross purposes and Fox finaUy brought the issue to a head in the cabinet meeting by proposing the immediate recognition of American independence. This proposal, which would have taken the American negotiations out of Shelburne's hands, was defeated. Shortly afterwards Rockingham died, the ministry was reorganized with Shelburne as its head, Shelburne and Fox resigned. So the deadlock ended with Shelburne in contro1- in control. MeanwhUe ParUament authorized negotiations with the colonies, and Oswald was commissioned for that purpose. Another agent, Fitzherbert, was appointed to negotiate with France; but the two men were now working under the same general direction. Now that the British cabinet had settled its internal The question differences another difficulty developed. Jay, who had "ecc^tiS"6 recently joined Franklin in Paris, objected to Oswald's commission because it spoke simply of "colonies" and did not formaUy recognize the United States as independent. Vergennes thought this was making too much of a formahty, but Jay persisted and Shelburne decided to accept the situ ation, without haggling over technical points. On Sep tember 21, Oswald received a commission authorizing him to negotiate with the "Thirteen United States of North America." The vital question of independence was now disposed of; but there were stUl difficult and far-reaching issues to be decided, and more than two months passed before the preliminary treaty was signed. First of aU, it was necessary to define the territory of Territorial the United States. So far as the coast line was concerned, oim es' the question was comparatively simple. Notwithstanding Franklin's suggestion to Oswald, Congress did not expect to get Canada, and on the northeastern border it was a 5i8 REPUBLICAN DIPLOMACY, 1 779-1784 American claims to the trans- AUeghenycountry. The views of France and Spain. question of detaU as to the exact line between Maine and Nova Scotia. So, on the south, it was easUy agreed that the United States would not claim Florida or the Gulf coast. The important and difficult question was the fate of the territory between the AUeghenies and the Mississippi. In 1779, Congress had insisted on the line of the Mississippi; but the instructions of 1781 did not make this an ultimatum and there was room for difference of opinion about the justice of the American claim. American arguments on this subject began with certain colonial charters, particularly those of Massachusetts, Con necticut, Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia, all of which contained sea-to-sea clauses, covering in the aggregate, the whole trans-AUegheny territory from the Great Lakes to the Floridas. The clause in the royal Proclamation of 1763, forbidding grants beyond the mountains, was correctly held to be only temporary; as for the Quebec Act, extending the boundaries of that province to the Ohio and the Mis sissippi, that was dismissed as one of those encroachments on American rights which had brought on the Revolution. These paper claims were now supported by the actual movement of population into the West. The growth of pioneer settlements in Kentucky and Tennessee, the activity of Virginia and Pennsylvania traders in the Mississippi vaUey, and Clark's operations in the IUinois country, aU served to stimulate American interest in the West. Not aU Americans, however, were equaUy interested. Some delegates from states which had no sea-to-sea charters were comparatively indifferent on western questions. The most serious objection to the American claim came not from Great Britain but from Spain, whose hopes of controlling the trade of the Gulf and the Mississippi were threatened by the American westward movement. On this point the French government could not satisfy one aUy without disappointing the other, and though Vergennes PROBLEM OF THE WEST 519 stood by the guarantee of American independence, he questioned whether the United States had a fair claim to the country beyond the mountains. In September, 1782, Rayneval, Vergennes's secretary, proposed to Jay a plan which showed plainly the influence of Spanish ideas. The territory south of the Ohio between the AUeghenies and the Mississippi was to be a vast Indian reservation, the western part being placed within the Spanish "sphere of influence" and the eastern within that of the United States. The fate of the country north of the Ohio was to be "regulated" by the court of London. Much troubled by the attitude of the French govern- shelburne ment and especiaUy by a visit of Rayneval to London, Jay Africa?6 sent a confidential messenger to Shelburne. Fortunately daim- Jay's effort to secure a more direct and independent under standing with the British government harmonized with the poUcy of Shelburne, who, having once agreed to recognize American independence, was anxious to estabUsh friendly relations with the new government, incidentaUy detaching it, so far as possible, from France. Perhaps Shelburne's study of American problems before the war showed him the futil ity of trying to check the western expansion of the seaboard colonies. So before long the British and American commis sioners came together on the general outlines of the terri torial settlement. With shght regard for Spanish claims, it was agreed that the United States should extend to the Mississippi, sharing the free navigation of that river with the British. In working out these articles, Jay and Adams, with the Action of reluctant consent of FrankUn, not only ignored their instruc- can envoys. tions, which required them to consult the French ministers ^^ctBt at every point, but they also agreed on a secret article about the Floridas which gave the British a distinct pref erence over the Spaniards. If at the close of the war the Floridas were held by Spain, the northern boundary of 520 REPUBLICAN DIPLOMACY, 1779-1784 West Florida was to be the thirty-first paraUel; but if Great Britain kept these provinces, then the boundary was to be drawn somewhat farther north, beginning with the mouth of the Yazoo River. When the final treaty was made, Spanish possession of the Floridas was assured, and the line was therefore drawn at the thirty-first paraUel; but for many years afterwards the Spaniards were, quite naturaUy, unwilling to accept a boundary line about which they had not been consulted. The northern In discussing the northern boundary one plan proposed boundary. was ^ extensjon 0f ^e forty-fifth paraUel, now the north ern boundary of New York, straight west to the Mississippi. This would have given the United States a large part of the present province of Ontario: but Lake Superior would have become whoUy British, and with it the rich mineral resources of northern Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. On the whole, therefore, it was fortunate that the present water boundary through the upper St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes was finaUy adopted. The Other questions, then discussed at great length, are now of less general interest. One was the question of the northern fisheries, for which John Adams, the New England member of the commission, felt himself particularly responsible. His theory was that the fisheries, not only on the high seas but even in the territorial waters of Newfoundland and other parts of British America, were part of a joint stock acquired by the colonies with the mother country whUe stUl partners in the same empire. The partnership was now dissolved; but the United States was still entitled to share in this joint interest, even within British jurisdiction. This was an extreme position, not only from the British point of view but from that of the French also, who had certain claims on the Newfoundland fisheries. Adams was stubborn, how ever, and won a substantial victory. On the questions of territorial boundaries and the fisher- PROBLEM OF THE LOYALISTS 521 ies, the American commissioners did remarkably well. Of British the other issues discussed, two proved particularly difficult. debts" These were the question of American debts to British credi tors and the compUcated problem of the loyaUsts. For Scotch and EngUsh business men the first question was vitally important, since the balances due by American planters and merchants to their correspondents in London were very large. The outbreak of war seemed to Americans an exceUent opportunity for canceling these debts and that was done in one state after another. Now, however, the British government demanded that such obhgations should be recognized as stUl binding. Franklin questioned whether the commissioners or Congress had a right to bind the States in this matter, but Adams declared that he had no intention of cheating anybody, and so made possible a mutual agreement that there should be no interference with the coUection of just debts due by citizens of either country to those of the other. StiU more troublesome was the problem of the loyalists. The problem The British position in relation to their American supporters loyalists. was very difficult. Though one of the principal parties to the war, the loyaUsts had no voice in the final settlement. Some were exUes in England or within the British lines in America and others clung to their old homes; their property had been confiscated and many had suffered untold hard ships. For aU this distress little sympathy was felt either by the Whigs in the United States or by the commissioners in Paris. From their point of view the Tories were traitors to America, who by their advice to the British government had been largely responsible for bringing on the conflict. Having chosen their part, they must now take the conse quences. This attitude was natural enough after a civil war marked by harshness and brutaUty on both sides; but it was equally natural that the British should feel differently. For them it was clearly a debt of honor to protect those who 522 REPUBLICAN DIPLOMACY, 1 770-1 784 Compromise on the loyalists. PreUminary treaty of 1782. International results of the war. had sacrificed so much in their devotion to the ideal of a united empire. If at any time British statesmen were inclined to forget these obUgations, they were painfuUy re minded of them by the throng of exUes in London. At times the deadlock seemed almost hopeless, but a compromise was finaUy reached. It was agreed, first, that Congress should recommend to the states some concession, especiaUy to those loyaUsts who had not taken up arms on the British side; and secondly, that there should be no further proceed ings against anyone because of his part in the war. The promise to make recommendations to the states was f ulfiUed, but proved to be of Uttle value because of the intense popular feeling against the Tories. Taken together, how ever, these two measures enabled the ministry to "save its face" to some extent at least. The document finaUy signed by Oswald and the American commissioners, on November 30, 1782, was not strictly a treaty, but an agreement on certain articles which were to be incorporated in a formal treaty after Great Britain had come to terms with France. In this way the formal re quirements of the French affiance were satisfied, though the proceedings as a whole hardly showed the spirit which might have been expected between allies. At last, in Jan uary, 1 783 , preliminary articles of peace were signed by France and Spain, by which the Bourbon powers recovered some of the ground lost in 1763. France made a slight gain in the West Indies and Spain secured not only her old colony of Florida but also that part of the Gulf coast east of New Orleans which had been a part of French Louisiana. Though Great Britain had to reconcUe herseff to the loss of the thirteen colonies, she got through the war with less damage than might have been expected, considering the combination of forces against her. Of all the powers, America was the only one to gain any great advantage from the war. The French monarchy had won a supposed advantage by weakening CRITICISM OF THE TREATY 523 England, but paid for it by a burdensome debt. Spain faUed to shake England's hold on Gibraltar, and though she held more territory in North America than ever before, she had to face a new rival in the young American repubUc, whose hopes of western expansion conflicted squarely with her own. During the peace negotiations, the American commis- French and sioners were acting with little opportunity to consult their ^ritidsTof constituents. They were subject to instructions of which ihe treaty- they did not whoUy approve but which could not be changed without long and perhaps disastrous delays. When the work was at last done, they were naturaUy anxious about the im pression it would make in America. Congress was finaUy convinced that the commissioners had on the whole made a satisfactory bargain; but on some points there was sharp criticism. The articles on the loyalists were unsatisfactory; there was no arrangement for the reopening of commercial relations with the West Indies; finaUy, the commissioners had faUed to obey their instructions in the matter of con sulting with the French government. Special point was given to this last criticism by a communication from Ver gennes, and his resentment was embarrassing because Con gress was then making fresh demands on the French treasury. Before long, however, the controversy died down and the articles were accepted. Meantime, Franklin undertook the task of pacifying Vergennes and made the best of an embarrassing business. Vergennes accepted the situation, and the French government made a new loan of six miUions to the United States. HostiUties were suspended in February, 1783, but more EngUsh than six months passed before the final treaty was signed. In CTltiasm- the British Parliament the treaty and the ministry which made it were vigorously attacked, partly at least for factional reasons. Shelburne had to resign and a new ministry was formed by a curious alliance between the followers of Fox 524 REPUBLICAN DIPLOMACY, 1 779-1784 Last stages of the negotiations. The defini tive treaty and its ratification. and North. So, after aU, it was Fox who directed the ne gotiations for the final treaty of peace. His agent in Paris was David Hartley, who had corresponded with Franklin during the war, and whose friendly feeling for the Americans now led him to propose concessions which would have cut deep into the old British commercial system. Fox himself was, of course, friendly to the Americans, and many of the London merchants were interested in plans for the reopen ing of American trade. Unfortunately there were also strong interests on the other side, including the ship owners and the merchants trading to the West Indies, who were afraid of American competition. So the hope of a commercial understanding came to nothing, and a great opportunity for promoting international good wiU was lost. It was not possible now to do more than incorporate the preliminary articles in the definitive treaty of peace, which was duly signed on September 3, 1783. Even yet the busi ness was not completed, for the treaty had to be ratified by both governments, and it took a long time for the Con gress to get a quorum for this purpose. Finally, however, in May, r784, ratifications were exchanged in London and the work was done. It was nine years since the war began and nearly eight since the thirteen colonies first asserted their right to "assume among the powers of the earth" their "separate and equal station." Now this right had been formaUy recognized by the mother country and the American people were at last free to work out more adequately the difficult problems of economic, political, and social reconstruction. General references. BD3LIOGRAPHICAL NOTES Channing, United States, III, ch. XII. Fish, C. R., American Diplomacy, chs. IV, V. McLaughlin, A. C, Confederation and Constitution, chs. I, II. Winsor, America, VII, ch. II. Bancroft, United States, V, pt. V. chs. I-VII. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 525 Hart, Contemporaries, II, ch. XXXV. Treaty in Macdonald, Collected sources Select Documents, no. 3. Morse, J. T., John Adams, chs. VIH-LX. PeUew, G, John American Jay, chs. VI-VIII. Various biographies of Franklin. negotiators. Adams, J., Diary in Works, III, 298-383. FrankUn, Writings Sources. (Smyth edition), VIII. Wharton, F., Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence, especially V, VI. Corwin, French Policy and the American Alliance. Phillips, Relations P. C, The West in the Diplomacy of the American Revolution l^g™0" ((University of IUinois, Studies). Winsor, J., Westward Move- The West. ment, ch. XII. Fitzmaurice, Shelburne, III, chs. III-VI. BritishpoUcy. CHAPTER XXIV INDEPENDENT AMERICA The new era. In his "FareweU Orders" to the American armies, Washington expressed the mingled hope and anxiety with which thoughtful Americans looked forward to the new era of independence. There were indeed unique opportunities, "enlarged prospects of happiness," almost exceeding "the power of description." It seemed, not only to Americans but to liberal Europeans in England and on the Continent, that here, unfettered by the traditions of the Old World, there was a chance to work out a new kind of politics and a new social order for the enlightenment of mankind. The French economist, Turgot, spoke of American independence as the most important event since the discovery of the New World. "New-born RepubUcs of America," he wrote, "I salute you as the hope of mankind, to which you open a refuge, and promise great and happy examples." Advice and But Washington had also his word of warning. In the criticism. ., ,, , , , , , , . FareweU Orders and elsewhere, he put the serious ques tion, whether the American people would be equal to then- great task. Independence was won but "unless the principles of the federal government were properly supported, and the powers of the Union increased, the honor, dignity, and justice of the nation would be lost forever." Nor was the possibUity of faUure overlooked by friends and enemies abroad. The same Turgot who greeted the new republics with so much enthusiasm felt also the seriousness of the issue. Fifty years from now the world would have learned "whether modern peoples can preserve republican consti- 526 TERRITORIAL PROBLEMS 527 tutions, whether morals are compatible with the great prog ress of civilization, and whether America is meant to improve or to aggravate the fate of humanity." Some EngUshmen shared this sympathetic interest, as, for instance, Hartley, negotiator of the peace treaty, and Richard Price, one of the best-known poUtical philosophers of his time, whose advice on American problems was welcomed by Franklin and John Adams. Other critics were not so friendly. Franklin complained that American prospects were disparaged in the British press, which was fiUed with "strange accounts of anarchy and confusion," and there was much skepticism in Europe about the permanence of this repubUcan confedera tion. It is easy to smile at these doubts, but they were not wholly unreasonable in view of the previous history of republics and federations. The territorial extent of the Union was a great permanent Resources asset, but it furnished also many serious problems. Much Sng^Terri- of the territory aUotted to the United States by the peace tory- treaty was not really brought under American control un til the following decade. The British continued to hold British posts. posts beyond the line at Oswego, Niagara, Detroit, Mackinaw, Green Bay, and a few other points south of the Lakes. In western New York, in the present areas of Michigan and Wisconsin, and in a considerable stretch of territory across what is now northern Ohio, Indiana, and IUinois, it was the British flag that counted most during the next decade. Farther south the situation was simUarly confused. The handful of American citizens in IUinois looked across the Mississippi to a Spanish province. Whether that river should be an international waterway as weU as a boundary daims. was a question stUl to be thrashed out with the Spaniards, who controUed not only the whole western bank but also the eastern side for more than two hundred mUes from the Gulf. Spain also refused to accept the Anglo-American agreement fixing the southern boundary of the United 528 INDEPENDENT AMERICA States at the thirty-first paraUel. Whether this contention was right or wrong, the advantage of actual possession was with the Spaniards, who had a mffitary post at Natchez weU above that boundary and could block the passage of American ships to the Gulf. The Indians. The Indians also had to be considered; they had no pleni potentiary at Paris, but they were stiU the chief occupants of the trans-AUegheny country. It was an interesting question which Aranda, the Spanish ambassador, put to Jay in August, 1782. "What right," he asked, had the Ameri cans to "territories which manifestly belong to free and independent nations of Indians." The solution then pro posed by the French secretary, Rayneval, was the recog nition of Spanish, British, and American "spheres of influence," or protectorates. The British decided at that time in favor of the American rather than the Spanish contention, and by agreeing to surrender the western posts seemed to have committed themselves against the theory of a buffer territory under Indian sovereignty; but the notion was not quite dead. London and Montreal merchants interested in the fur trade of the Great Lakes region were not reconcUed to the surrender of the western posts. Though they could not keep this article out of the definitive treaty, they did delay its execution. Unfor tunately the American state legislatures played into the hands of this British group by violating other articles of the treaty, so providing an argument against the surrender of the posts. A large proportion of the northwestern Indians consequently remained under British influence and were encouraged to hold out against the claims of the United States, thus check ing the progress of white occupation. In the southern section of the Ohio vaUey the settlements of Kentucky and Tennessee were now numerous enough to insure their permanence; but farther south the boundary dispute with Spain created an Indian problem much like that of the Northwest. STATE CLAIMS 529 Interstate boundary questions also made trouble. At state the close of the Revolution congressional arbitration decided boundanes- one such dispute by giving Pennsylvania jurisdiction over the Wyoming valley, which had been claimed by Connecticut. A simUar dispute between New York and Massachusetts over the territory south of Lake Ontario was still undecided in 1783; Massachusetts did not give up her claim untU three years later. In New England Maine Embryo stiU belonged to Massachusetts, but the status of Vermont £eE!' was uncertain; its new government was not yet recognized by Congress, and New York stUl claimed jurisdiction. In the south, Kentucky remained under the government of Virginia, and though the liberals of the mother state soon conceded Kentucky's claim to statehood, the terms of sep aration were not so easUy arranged. Feeling that in this period of uncertainty their interests were neglected, some of the frontier leaders were seriously discontented. North Car olina also had an embryo commonwealth to deal with in the Tennessee country, where an attempt was made to form the new state of Franklin; it faUed, however, to get con gressional approval and the authority of North Carolina was reestablished. As to the rest of the western country, north of the Ohio State claims and south of Tennessee, there were differences of another lands. sort. Should the sea-to-sea charters of Virginia, Massa chusetts, and the rest be recognized as stUl valid, or should this territory be treated as a federal domain? Some of the states were not ready to give up without a struggle. Virginia, for instance, reasserted her charter claims in the constitution of 1776, and after Clark's expedition to Kaskaskia she organized a large part of the "old Northwest" into the "county of Illinois." The American arguments at the peace conference also assumed the vahdity of the old charters. On the other hand there were strong arguments against these state claims. For one thing, they conflicted with each other. cessions. 530 INDEPENDENT AMERICA Against the vague "west and northwest" clause of the Vir ginia charter there were overlapping claims of Massachu setts and Connecticut, not to mention the pretensions of New York, based on its aUeged suzerainty over the Iroquois and their western tributaries. Furthermore, states which had no western claims thought it quite unfair that territory won by the common efforts of thirteen commonwealths should be monopolized by a bare majority of them. On this ground Maryland stubbornly refused to ratify the Articles of Con federation untU convinced that Virginia would give up her jurisdiction, at least north of the Ohio. State In 1780 Congress urged the states to surrender their western claims, agreeing, if that were done, to hold the ter ritory for the common benefit of aU, with the understanding that out of it new states should be developed. In 1781 New York cleared the way by transferring to Congress her shad owy Iroquois title. Virginia, after some controversy about detaUs, gave in 1784 a formal deed of cession covering the territory northwest of the Ohio, and during the next three years Massachusetts and Connecticut foUowed suit. By 1787, federal jurisdiction was estabUshed over the whole "Northwest" except the "Connecticut Reserve" in north ern Ohio. South of the Ohio the state claims were stiU kept up untU after 1789, except for a narrow strip ceded by South Carolina in 1787. Physical Making aU possible aUowance for disputed boundaries, the new repubhc was already more fortunate in physical endowment than any European nation. Its territory was many times greater than that of any except Russia, and the enormous extent of that empire was offset by the long water frontage of the United States on a temperate ocean, giving facilities for international commerce quite beyond the dreams of the most hopeful Russian patriot. Without being fanciful the comparison may be carried a little farther. Neither people had more than scratched the surface of their great resources. POPULATION 531 landed inheritance and both had great opportunities for colonization over contiguous territory, with only moderate mountain barriers to delay their progress. Probably no American of that day appreciated the economic resources of his country better than Washington. In a letter to a French friend he told of a recent tour in the back coun try, dweffing with special enthusiasm on " the vast inland navigation of these United States." Within this "new empire," as Washington caUed it, Population. there were probably about three miffion people, not count ing the Indian tribes. After the war, immigration set in on a large scale and by 1790 the population had risen to about four miffion. AU estimates for this period, even the first federal census, are quite imperfect; but it is probable that the American population was at least doubled in the quarter century which foUowed the passage of the Stamp Act. Even then, there were fewer Americans ^in the whole country than are now living in the city of New York alone. Somewhat less than haff these people lived in the states Distribution from Maryland southward and the northerners were about °ationPU equally divided between New England and the middle group, though the latter soon forged ahead. If, however, the whites only are counted, the two northern sections would outnumber the South nearly two to one. We can only make rough guesses about the distribution of popu lation between East and West, partly because there was not then and is not now any agreement as' to the meaning of those terms. If we classify as eastern all the people Uving within the present limits of the original thirteen states, the westerners would scarcely exceed one in thirty. If we take the crest of the Appalachian watershed as the dividing line, even this would probably leave nineteen twentieths of the American people on the eastern side. If, however, we in clude also the hiU-country farmers from New England south ward to Georgia who were stUl struggling with frontier 532 INDEPENDENT AMERICA problems, we get several hundred thousand more Western ers, — stffi a smaU minority but a vigorous and rapidly ex panding one. Even the oldest colonies had plenty of elbow room. The entire population of the four middle states in 1783 was probably about one eighth of the number now Uving A rural within the continuous urban area of which the city of New York is the center. The largest city in the country was Philadelphia, with something over 30,000 inhabitants. In 1790, the number of people Uving under urban conditions as now defined by the Bureau of the Census was less than one in thirty. Racial The constituent elements of the American people did e ements. nQt cnange mucn during the three decades from 1760 to 1790. The English stock stffi largely outnumbered all the others in New England and in the southern tidewater. New immi gration strengthened the Irish, Scotch-Irish, and German elements; but the growth of the German element was offset by the steady assimilation of older non-English elements, especiaUy the Dutch, with their English neighbors. Such representative New Yorkers as John Jay and Gouverneur Morris represented the mingling of French blood with Dutch and EngUsh, but their social outlook was not essentiaUy different from that of men whose descent was wholly EngUsh. The Many of the older German immigrants retained then- element, distinctive traditions and their community Ufe; and in this respect their churches exerted a strong conservative influence. Their language persisted not only in common speech but also in their own press. Yet they too were beginning to share in the more general interests of their adopted country. WhUe mercenaries from Brunswick and Hesse fought on the British side, sturdy German colonials like Herkimer and his Mohawk vaUey neighbors played their part in the winning of inde pendence. In the decade foUowing the Revolution, some of the Germans held positions of leadership in state and federal poUtics. Frederick Muhlenberg, son of the famous Lutheran RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS ELEMENTS 533 pioneer, served successively as speaker of the Pennsylvania assembly, president of the state convention which ratified the Federal Constitution, and finaUy as the first Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. When aU is said, however, there were comparatively few Predomi- of the governing class whose ancestry was not traceable to IngUsh^ some part of the British Isles. The signers of the great sp^lpng historic documents of this period — the Declaration of In dependence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Consti tution 0^1787 — were nearly aU of English, Scotch, or Irish descent. ReUgious distinctions were not yet negligible. The Angli- Religion. can (or Episcopal) Church suffered most from the Revolution, because of its connection with the British government and the strength of the loyaUst element among its members. Even after the first American bishopric was estabUshed in Con necticut, the prejudice against that church persisted, espe ciaUy in New England. In Virginia there were sharp conflicts between EpiscopaUans and Presbyterians, though at times conservatives in both groups combined against more radical elements like the Baptists and the "New Lights." Most Americans who made any religious pro fession at aU caUed themselves Christians and Protestants; the only state in which CathoUcs were influential was Maryland. Even the Episcopalians decided to caU their church "Protestant Episcopal." This Protestant feeling showed itself in several of the early state constitutions, which excluded CathoUcs from certain offices. On the whole, however, religious partisanship counted much less in politics than it had in colonial days. Compared with Europe, American society seemed to Sodal dis- , ,. . , , , , tinctions. most observers distinctly democratic; but there was one slavery. class distinction more radical than any then existing in western or central Europe. That was the distinction between white masters and their black slaves. This servUe class 534 INDEPENDENT AMERICA No formal aristocracy. Persistence of other social dis tinctions. not only furnished the South with most of its unskffied labor but formed about one fifth of the whole American population. Though tending to disappear in the North, slavery was so deeply involved in the social structure of the South that even men like Jefferson, who hated the institution, emphasized the difficulty of blacks and whites living together on any other basis. Nevertheless, the border states of Virginia and Maryland were beginning to realize the economic disad vantages of slavery, and by 1783 both governments had prohibited the importation of negro slaves. Other class distinctions were much less serious. A few titled personages had lived in America, but most of them con sidered the old country as their permanent home. Attempts to organize an American nobUity had broken down; a few Americans had been knighted for special services, as, for instance, Sir William Pepperell of Massachusetts and Sir WiUiam Johnson of New York, but these were rare exceptions. Formal aristocracy quickly disappeared from American life. Titles of nobUity were condemned in several of the early state constitutions and the feeling was so strong that the association of Revolutionary officers known as the Cincin nati was sharply attacked because the privUege of member ship was made hereditary. It is true that independent America had not quite forgotten the distinction between "gentle" and "simple." The Pinckneys of South CaroUna, the Randolphs of Virginia, and the Livingstons of New York were still looked up to by their fellow citizens. The older American gentry was considerably weakened by the Revolution, but many of the "new men" who came to the front gained a simUar prestige. In Virginia, Washington and Jefferson enjoyed on their landed estates a kind of life not unlike that of well-to-do English country gentlemen. Pennsylvania had in John Dickinson a good example of the rich "gentleman-farmer" who could afford the luxury of a town house, and in Robert Morris an equaUy notable ECONOMIC CLASSES 535 example of the merchant prince. John Adams, no longer quite so insurgent as in his early days, believed that the "wellborn" should have some recognition even in a repub lic. The essential fact, however, is that such class distinc tions were, even in the older settlements, far less rigid than in Europe. The aristocracy of an undeveloped country is one which almost any man of force may hope to enter. The French writer, Segur, describing society in Rhode Is land during the war, said that he had seen nowhere "a more complete mingling of persons of all classes, between whom an equal decency allowed no untoward difference to be seen." The smaU farmers, who formed the largest single element The small in American society, had not changed radicaUy since colo nial times. Though much better off than the typical European peasant, their inteUeetual outlook, as weU as their commercial intercourse, was much restricted. Their supply of ready money was small and they complained that too much of it went to the commercial and creditor class. They believed with some justice that taxes were inequitably levied; also that if lawyers were fewer and paper money plentiful, a more equitable distribution of wealth might be secured. In some of these demands the farmers were supported by the smaU shopkeepers of the towns. Leaving the negroes out of account, the landless laboring Labor and class was much smaUer than it now is. At its lower level were the white indentured servants, or redemptioners, who were stffi imported from abroad and could stffi be bought and sold. A Uttle higher in the scale were the hired men on the northern farms, the free servants in weU-to-do house holds, and some of the poorer mechanics. Such people commonly did not have the right to vote and the labor unions now so powerful had not as yet developed for their protection. Even in these groups, however, extreme poverty was comparatively rare. Food was abundant and cheap, 536 INDEPENDENT AMERICA and the chance of free or practicaUy free land on the frontier tended to pull wages up. Americans like Franklin and Jay, returning from long periods of absence abroad, were im pressed by the high cost of labor. In a few of the larger towns the mechanics were beginning to make a stir in poUtics, as in PhUadelphia, where they combined with the back-country farmers against the old ruling class. Sectionalism. SectionaUsm played an even larger part in the early days of the American Union than it now does. There were con flicts of interests between groups of states, between sections within a given state, and between sectional areas which cut across state boundaries. AU these divisions were accent uated by difficulties of communication. It took more time and trouble to go from Boston to New York in 1783 than it now takes to go from either to San Francisco. Exchanges of information now possible in a few minutes by telephone often took many days. Slow and expensive transportation produced great differences in price levels, which were aggra vated by the faUure of the Confederation to provide a stand ard coinage, so that different localities had different rates of exchange for EngUsh shUlings and Spanish doUars. New England New England was stffi the most closely knit of aU the Revolution, sections, with definite common traditions in manners, poUtics, and religion. Its most characteristic economic activities were, as in colonial times, connected with the sea. New England's interest in the northern fisheries had been guarded in the treaty of 1783; but there was some anxiety about the foreign markets, in which a large part of each season's catch had formerly been sold. Royal orders closed the British West Indies to American fish, and Yankee ships in the Mediterranean were no longer protected by the Brit- Commerdal ish navy against the Barbary pirates. The fisheries and the problems. shipping interest suffered from the uncertainties of this period of readjustment. Under the EngUsh Navigation Acts New England vessels were now foreign, and though some trade. NEW ENGLAND COMMERCE 537 new lines of foreign trade were opened up during the war, Frenchmen and Spaniards were about as reluctant as the EngUsh to relax their old commercial systems. Imports from England came in freely, so freely, indeed, as to overload the market; but the export trade was thrown out of gear. So, after a period of abnormal war risks, with correspond ingly high prices, New Englanders whose capital was in vested in shipping and foreign commerce were for a time much depressed. It was not long, however, before Yankee ingenuity found Revival of new opportunities. The open ports of the Danish and Dutch West Indies furnished one way of evading British colonial regulations; the use of fraudulent British papers was another. The French made some concessions in their islands, which helped the American export trade in lumber and bread- stuffs. During this decade came also the modest beginnings of New England commerce with China, and before long the American share in the Canton trade was second only to that of the British. In 1789 four ships belonging to a single Salem famUy were at that port at one time. StUl, as in colonial times, important branches of foreign trade were carried on not only from Boston but from minor ports hke Newport and Salem. Newport business men were getting letters from English correspondents looking toward the re vival of old business relations. One such correspondent in Manchester presented an ante-bellum bUl for payment and invited orders for British manufactures. There were Irish merchants, too, who hoped for some New England business and were ready with advice. One of them suggested that the "general run of New England rum" was too "weak and Ul-flavored for this market." Other places in which Newport merchants then had correspondents were Portu gal, Hamburg, the Netherlands, and the Scandinavian countries. The interruption of trade during the earUer years of 53» INDEPENDENT AMERICA Home manufac tures. Agricultural and com mercial interests. New York. ' Commerce. the Revolution stimulated home manufactures; but peace brought back the old trade with the mother country before they could compete effectively with British goods. Though New Englanders foUowed with interest recent improvements in the British textile industry, the development of such manufactures in New England, except of a rudimentary kind and for a limited market, had to wait until the next generation. More New Englanders were stffi engaged in farming than in any other single occupation, and when weU organized the farmers could outvote the merchants. Even in a small area Uke Rhode Island, the rural population dominated politics for a large part of this period. Never theless, New England was generaUy thought of as the dis tinctively commercial section of the country. PoUticaUy, also, the commercial interest, supported by the professional classes, had an influence out of aU proportion to its num bers and was usuaUy able to speak for New England in the councUs of the Union. In New York, the conflict of commercial and agricul tural interests was compUcated by the bitter antagonism. between the Whigs who came back to the city at the end of the British occupation and their Tory neighbors who had remained at home. For several years, the city of New York had been cut off from other parts of the Union; it had also suffered from extensive fires, and the uncertainties of the time delayed the work of restoration. These disadvantages, however, were only temporary and could not long prevent the city from exploiting its position as the market and outlet not only for up-state New York but for much of Connecti cut and New Jersey as weU. In fact, the New York legis lature sometimes took unfair advantage of this situation by levying duties on the trade of its neighbors. In the export trade of New York, furs had lost much of their former importance, partly because British occupation of the Lake posts, including Oswego, discouraged the American traders. NEW YORK AND PENNSYLVANIA 539 NaturaUy the merchants were aU the more anxious for the reopening of the West Indian trade. The landed interest was relatively more important in The landed New York than in New England, and for several years mterest- such leaders as Governor Clinton kept themselves in power by skUlful appeals to the rural voters against the moneyed interests of the city of New York. In opposition to John Jay, and later Alexander HamUton, the up-state poUtical machine went in for paper money and for shifting taxation as far as possible from land to commerce, by means of customs duties. NaturaUy the New Yorkers were not anxious to see this revenue transferred from the state to the federal government. In Pennsylvania there was a similar balancing of rural Pennsyl- and commercial interests. PhUadelphia was the chief financial PhUadelphia center in the country and the great merchants of that city mercnants' were important factors in the national life, notably Robert Morris, the most conspicuous representative in his day of "big business" in poUtics. Genuinely patriotic, he was also deeply involved in speculative enterprises of every kind — trade with the East Indies, the development of iron manufactures, and investments in western lands. In PhUa delphia, as in Boston, trade suffered from international complications. One merchant wrote in 1783 to a Newport correspondent that tUl a commercial treaty could be made with England, it was impossible to teU "what to carry or where to go." Meantime, however, the European demand for American foodstuffs was growing and much of it was supphed by the Pennsylvanians, who, like the New Eng landers, were finding back doors to the British West Indies. By 1786, Franklin could write optimisticaUy about business conditions in PhUadelphia. Improved real estate had trebled in value since the Revolution, new buUdings were going up fast, and European goods could be had on easy terms. The PhUadelphia magnates had, however, to reckon with Democratic strong opposition elements. They could count generaUy £orces- 54Q INDEPENDENT AMERICA East and West. Growth of Baltimore. Virginiaplanters and farmers. Economicdifficulties. on the older and wealthier landowning communities; but in the city itself a radical democracy was taking shape. The old antagonism between the eastern and western sec tions, which had been so important a factor in the Revolu tion, was very much aUve. The up-country farmers counted for more than in colonial days; but they were scattered over a wider area and it was hard for them to organize against the more compact communities of the East. It is worth noting, for instance, that aU the Pennsylvania delegates to the Federal Convention of 1787 were chosen from PhUadelphia. In the Chesapeake country the growth of Baltimore was striking. Though far behind PhUadelphia, New York, and Boston, it had already a merchant class of some importance, buying and selling the products of Maryland and the neighbor ing states. The tobacco trade went on about as in colonial times, with the planters selling to British merchants or to "factors" on this side of the water. Jefferson pointed out, in his Notes on Virginia, that the planters stiU had trade brought up the rivers to their "doors," with the result that Virginia even now had "no towns of any consequence," though he had some hope of Norfolk's becoming the "em porium" for Chesapeake Bay. On the other hand, Jefferson was pleased to note that wheat production was rapidly gaining on tobacco; the latter, with its impoverishment of the soU, seemed to him a "culture productive of infinite wretchedness." With this decline in tobacco cultivation went other important changes: the shifting of power from the tidewater to the interior and growing doubts about the efficiency of slave labor. During the later years of the war the Virginians suffered considerably from hostUe armies and their old dependence on English shipping made the interruption of trade with the mother country more inconvenient than it was for most of the northerners. Here also there was some attempt to CONDITIONS IN THE SOUTH 541 develop home manufactures; but Jefferson thought his feUow citizens would go back as soon as they could to the business of exchanging raw materials "for finer manufactures than they are able to execute themselves." Meantime, the planters were burdened with debts and therefore reluctant to carry out the clause of the peace treaty regarding the rights of British creditors. For simUar reasons there was a good deal of paper-money sentiment, though not enough to .overcome the opposition of the more conservative leaders. 'f In both the Chesapeake colonies there was consider- Internal im- able interest in constructive projects. Both wanted a better provements- regulation of trade on the Potomac and in the Bay; there was also a strong movement for cooperation in the improvement of interior waterways, especiaUy for the purpose of develop ing trade with the West. By canals and the removal of obstructions, the James and the Potomac might be connected with the Ohio, and Virginia thus enabled to compete more effectively with Pennsylvania. Washington and other prom inent Virginians who held western lands naturaUy had a spe cial interest in such plans. The North Carolinians also were North deeply interested in the development of the West, whether aro as land speculators, like Richard Henderson, the founder of Kentucky, or as trafl makers and pioneers. In South Carolina poUtical power was stffi held by the South rice and indigo planters in combination with the leading Georgia. Charleston merchants. The conspicuous people in this state were generaUy great planters, or lawyers with large planta tion interests. Much Charleston money was, however, invested in foreign commerce. WhUe the Virginians were becoming dubious about slavery, South Carolina beUeved that economic salvation depended upon continuing that system. The older settlements of Georgia resembled those of South Carolina; but the most striking characteristic of this frontier state during the next few decades was its potential wealth in unoccupied lands. 542 INDEPENDENT AMERICA Westwardexpansion. New Eng land's part in the movement.. Ohio vaUey pioneers. Movement along the southern This survey of the sections would be quite incomplete without some account of the people who were laying the foundations of new commonwealths in the West. So far as the trans-AUegheny region was concerned, the part taken by New Englanders in this movement was negUgible. New England's pioneering was at that time mainly "down East," in Maine, or in Vermont, which was then growing rapidly. According to the census of 1790, Vermont ranked higher in population than three of the original thirteen states. These new settlements were less compact than those of seventeenth- century New England and somewhat more democratic; yet they reproduced to a considerable extent the Puritan spirit of the Massachusetts and Connecticut towns from which the founders came. As in earlier times, some New Englanders migrated to other sections. Before the Wyoming vaUey dispute was settled in favor of Pennsylvania, a few Con necticut people moved into that region. Disappointed in the outcome of that controversy, Connecticut began to plan seriously for the exploitation of its charter claims in northern Ohio. During this period pioneer settlements were made by New Englanders in central and western New York, and a few adventurous spirits began to think of the Ohio country. The real pioneers of the Ohio vaUey, however, were not the New Englanders, but the men who pushed through the Appalachian passes from Pennsylvania southward. The most common northern route to the vaUey then ran from PhUadelphia through the old German town of Lancaster and across the mountains to Pittsburgh. Every spring and summer a great stream of colonists made their way along this road and then floated down the river on flatboats. Even more important at first was the movement which foUowed the great southern tributaries of the Ohio. The Monongahela and Kanawha furnished convenient approaches from Virginia. Farther south, where the present states of BEYOND THE ALLEGHENIES 543 Virginia, North CaroUna, Kentucky, and Tennessee come The Ten- together, are the sources of the Cumberland and the Ten- nessee vaUey' nessee. The latter, rising among the Virginia mountains, flows southwestwardly across Tennessee into northern Alabama and Mississippi; here it takes a sharp turn to the northwest, flowing across Tennessee again and through Kentucky into the Ohio. To-day a steamboat can make its way up the Tennessee as far as Alabama with less risk of grounding than on the Mississippi between St. Louis and Cairo. For the flatboats and other smaU craft used by the pioneers, the upper reaches of the river were also nav igable, though the difficulties were great, including not only rapids and snags, but also the possibUity of Indian attacks. On the upper courses of these southern rivers were planted the first settlements of West Virginia and eastern Tennessee; later and more adventurous pioneers went on to lonely outposts stffi farther west. The early settlers of Nashville, for instance, followed the Tennessee to the Ohio, the Ohio to the Cumberland and up that river to the site of the present city. UntU 1789 most of these Ohio valley settlements were in Kentucky and Tennessee. North of the Ohio there were only a few Anglo-American pioneers inter spersed among the old French settlements, at such widely scattered points as Vincennes and Kaskaskia. Many of these frontier people were stiff chiefly occupied Problems of the ^^cst with hunting and Indian trading; but there were farmers, too, with surplus products to exchange for clothing, household goods, and tools. Since it was difficult for these frontier farmers to move their wheat, flour, and pork up the rivers to the East, they were deeply interested in getting an outlet The Mis- _ SISSIDDI through the Mississippi to the Gulf. Unfortunately Spain's question. exclusive policy interfered with this movement of trade. Now and then river cargoes were held up by Spanish officials, and impatient frontiersmen, like George Rogers 544 INDEPENDENT AMERICA Clark, were ready to retaliate without waiting for Congress to act. Not all Americans were sympathetic toward this colo nization of the West. John Jay, for instance, feared it would not be easy to manage the western people and doubted whether they would be "fit to govern themselves" even "after two or three generations." Even Washington thought the western movement might go too fast and that it would be better to fill in first the region adjoining the old colonies. In general, however, the South was more sympathetic than the northeastern states. Character- Generalizations about the western people have always istics of the , , . , , _f r J western been popular and usuaUy one-sided. Eastern contempora- a ' ries often overemphasized the lawless and even vicious char acters who found their way to the border country. On the other hand, many writers, including some able students of western history, tend to idealize the frontiersmen and assume that they represented a natural selection of the most vigorous people in the older settlements, leaving behind men of less force and initiative. As a matter of fact, many kinds of people were represented among the western settlers as weU as among those who remained at home. Some of those who felt the fascination of the wUderness were fine types of self- reliant manhood, like Daniel Boone, the pathfinder of Ken tucky. Others slipped into savage ways and became much Uke the Indians with whom they fought or trafficked. Most of the pioneers, however, were plain, practical people, who, were tired of working for wages or making a meager living out of poor land and were attracted by the free lands of the West. The moneyed class also had a part in the movement, sometimes as land speculators, sometimes by furnishing colonists with the necessary capital. Now and then such men went with their capital to the new country. The attractive quaUties of the frontiersmen were their courage, the self-reUance and resourcefulness caUed out by the RELIGION IN THE WEST 545 isolated life of the wUderness, and the democratic spirit which developed as men got away from the inherited distinctions of an older society. There were losses, however, as weU as gams. As Jay said, somewhat stiffly, the "progress of civi lization and the means of information" were "very tardy" in "separate settlements." With boundless resources to draw upon, the pioneers naturally used them wastefuUy and established habits which a later generation, forced to conserve its resources, cannot easUy shake off. The older colonial churches had comparatively Uttle ReUgion in influence in the early development of the trans-AUegheny the West' region. The Scotch-Irish Presbyterian clergy tried to care for their own people, who formed a large proportion of the western pioneers. But in this sparsely settled region it was hard to form churches and give them educated ministers. This left a wide field for service, in which important work was soon being done by two comparatively new churches, the Baptists and the Methodists. Their traveling preachers laid Uttle stress on the formaUties of worship, but their zeal made a deep impression. The Methodists, in particular, were soon able to conserve the results of this emotional preaching by an effective central organization, especiaUy weU adapted to the work of an expanding church. The field was too vast, however, for the forces then available and large populations grew up with an absence of educational and religious oppor tunities which scandalized the home missionaries of the next generation. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES McMaster, History of the People of the United States, I, ch. I. General Channing, United States, III, 408-427. CaUender, Selections survey- from the Economic History of the U. S., 168-177. Weeden, W. B., Economic New England, chs. XXII, XXIII. Morison, S. E., Maritime History of Massachusetts, chs. Ill, IV. 546 INDEPENDENT AMERICA Expansion Semple, E. C, American History and Its Geographic Conditions, West. 6 ch- V. Henderson, Conquest of the Old Southwest, ch. XIX. Hul- bert, A. B., Washington and the West. Matthews, L. K., Ex pansion of New England. Turner, Western State Making in the American Revolution, II {Am. Hist. Review, I, 251-269). Sources. Writings of Washington (Ford edition, X), Franklin, and Jefferson (including his Notes on Virginia). ChasteUux, J. F. de, Travels in North America (1780-1782). Schoepf, J. D., Travels in the Confederation (translated by Morrison). Quotations from French visitors in Jusserand, With Americans of Past and Present Days, and in SherriU, C. H., French Memories of Eighteenth Century America. Hart and Channing, American Historical Leaf lets, no. 22 (State land claims and cessions). See also references for ch. XXVI. CHAPTER XXV REPUBLICAN PRINCDPLES IN RECONSTRUCTION The American commonwealths began their independent Constitution existence with great natural resources; but their prosperous a^ftea development stiff depended in part on the kind of poUtical institutions they could estabUsh to replace the old colonial system. In the storm and stress of the Revolution, one state after another expressed its ideals and tried to pro vide for its own special needs by the adoption of a state constitution. Imperfect as these early experiments in self- government were, they were notable contributions to the science and art of poUtics. As such they attracted attention abroad, especiaUy in France, where they were translated and widely read. The new state constitutions began with the principle Methods of that aU just governments rest on the consent of the governed and that the permanent wffi of the people should be expressed in a fundamental written law. These constitutions were adopted in various ways, sometimes as in Virginia by a revolutionary assembly originaUy chosen for a very different purpose. In 1780, however, Massachusetts inaugurated sub stantiaUy the method now prevaUing of having the constitu tion framed by a convention chosen for that specific purpose by the voters themselves, to whom it was submitted for then- approval. These constitutions generally took for granted Unconstitu-' certain fundamental rights which could not be abridged or iation and taken away even by the lawmaking power. In colonial times e courts- Americans had been accustomed to having acts of their as sembUes annuUed ^by the EngUsh Privy CouncU on the 547 548 REPUBLICAN PRINCIPLES IN RECONSTRUCTION Suffrage qualifications. RepubUcan ideals. ground that they were contrary to their charters, or to the principles of common law. Now the new state courts began to exercise a simUar authority. In the New Jersey case of Holmes v. Walton, the judges declared an act of the legis lature null and void because it authorized a jury of less than twelve men to try certain criminal cases. There were some protests against such action; but by 1787 the principle that judges might declare laws invalid seemed to be supported by the best legal opinion. Nearly everybody agreed that ultimate sovereignty rested with the people; but just who were the "people" in the poUtical meaning of that term? In this respect the first state constitutions were conservative. The Virginia Decla ration of Rights declared that aU men should vote who could offer "sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community "; but the old prop erty qualifications were retained and Jefferson declared that this meant the disfranchisement of more than half the men who paid taxes or were enroUed in the state mffitia. With variations in detaU, the precedent set by Virginia was foUowed by the other states. Even with these restrictions, however, the American system entrusted poUtical power to a much larger proportion of the population than was thought de sirable in any European country. Though not strictly democratic from a twentieth- century point of view, the constitution makers of that day were committed to republican ideals and against any kind of hereditary rule. In Virginia, for instance, the most con servative leaders did not apparently propose anything more monarchical than a governor serving during good behavior, and even that does not seem to have been seriously con sidered. The whole structure of American society was against the hereditary principle. Besides, many Americans were famUiar with repubUcan theories, especiaUy those of seventeenth century EngUsh Puritans; in two of the STATE CONSTITUTIONS 549 chartered colonies, they had seen practicaUy repubUcan governments at work. Notwithstanding their rejection of the hereditary prin- Sources of ciple, the American constitutions were much influenced by th,^1 EngUsh and colonial theory, though sometimes mistaken in their interpretation of the former. FoUowing the French writer, Montesquieu, in his interpretation of the English system, Americans accepted the theory of the separation "Separa- of powers, or "checks and balances." This required the ^werl" differentiation of three departments of government: the legislative, to make the laws; the executive, to enforce them; and the judiciary, to apply them in individual dis putes. These three departments were perfectly famUiar, both in EngUsh practice and in the American colonial govern ments. It was, therefore, primarUy a question of how to get a better balance between the executive, on the one side, and the legislature and the judiciary on the other. Quite in accordance with English and colonial precedents, state aU the new legislatures except that of Pennsylvania con- bicameral13' sisted of two houses. It was beUeved that biUs would be system. more carefuUy considered under this plan than if one assem bly were given full power, and many thought an upper house was needed to protect property rights against radical legislation. On this theory senators sometimes had to have higher property qualifications than were required of repre sentatives; in New York and North Carolina they were chosen by a more limited g'oup of voters. Efforts were Problems of made to secure a fairer representation of districts and ^eat. sections than had existed before the Revolution. John Adams beUeved that the assembly should be "in miniature an exact portrait of the people at large" and in the Massa chusetts lower house representation was in fair proportion to population; but the senate appointment was based on property. Elsewhere too the results were unsatisfactory, and Jefferson complained that the Virginia apportionment was 550 REPUBLICAN PRINCDPLES IN RECONSTRUCTION decidedly unfair. In 1782, he calculated that the tidewater districts had seventy-one members of the lower house as against forty-six for the piedmont area with substantiaUy the same number of fighting men. The question To secure a more complete separation of powers, the power. executive functions of the old provincial councUs were given not to the senate but to a distinct executive councU. On the question of giving the governor a veto there was a decided difference of opinion. The Virginia constitution rejected the idea, and this example was foUowed by most of the other states. It was a natural result of popular feeling against the abuse of this power by the royal governors; but cautious thinkers like John Adams thought the executive needed some such protection against encroachments by the legislature. In 1780 Massachusetts worked out a compromise, giving the governor a suspensive veto which could be overruled by a two- thirds majority in both houses of the legislature. New York tried the experiment of giving this power to a council of revision consisting of the governor and a group of judges. This latter plan was popular for a time and as late as 1818 was incorporated in the constitution of Illinois; but the Massachusetts idea has finaUy prevaUed in nearly aU the states, as weU as in the federal Constitution. Extent of Notwithstanding the theory that the legislature was bound power. V BiUs by a fundamental law, specific limitations on its power were of rights. largely confined to the so-caUed "bffi of rights," which was chiefly designed to prevent arbitrary interference with in dividual liberty. These rights were largely drawn from EngUsh sources, but some ideas like freedom of the press and religious Uberty were more fuUy developed. Except for these safeguards, the powers of the legislature were broadly stated. The long Ust of things which a twentieth-century legislature is forbidden to do was conspicuously absent. Weak The executive, on the other hand, was treated with great executives. SUSpicion. Pennsylvania preferred to have no governor at STATE CONSTITUTIONS 551 aU, but only an executive board. In New England governors were chosen annually by the qualified voters, and in New York the election was intrusted to a select group of large freeholders; elsewhere the governor was chosen by the legis lature and usually for one year only. Jefferson was not an ardent beUever in one-man power; but even he objected to this excessive dependence of the executive on the legis lature. Jealousy of the governor showed itself also in other ways. In Virginia, for instance, he could not adjourn or prorogue the legislature as the royal governors had done; the appointment of judges and other important officers was taken from him; and he could not establish his authority in any matter " by virtue of any law, statute, or custom of England." The executive councU, already mentioned, also limited the governor's power. There was a general desire to make the judiciary more An inde- independent than in colonial times, and in a majority j^Sdary. of the states judges were appointed to serve during good behavior; two other constitutions fixed terms of five and seven years. In Massachusetts the judges were chosen by the executive, but in several states this power was given to the legislature. Direct choice by the people was not approved anywhere. These changes in the mechanism of government did not ReUgious satisfy the radicals, who valued them largely as means to ests- the establishment of a freer and more democratic society. In the matter of religious liberty, for example, great progress had been made; but liberals Uke Franklin and Jefferson believed there was still much to be done. Religious discrim ination of one kind or another was quite general. In Massa chusetts, for instance, the governor had to declare himself a supporter of the Christian religion, and though every citizen could claim the right to worship God in the way "most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience," another clause promising equal protection under the law was 552 REPUBLICAN PRINCIPLES IN RECONSTRUCTION Churchand state^ relations. Separation of church and state in Virginia. apparently limited to Christian denominations. Massa chusetts practicaUy excluded CathoUcs by requiring every officeholder to declare on oath that no "foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate" had any authority "in any matter civfl, ecclesiastical, or spiritual, within this commonwealth." In New York, a simUar oath was required for naturalization. In several other states CathoUcs were specificaUy excluded from office. Even in Pennsylvania, Franklin had to apologize for a clause in the constitu tion requiring legislators to declare their beUef in the divine inspiration of the Old and New Testaments. The Revolution did not at once do away with state churches, whether in New England or in Virginia. The Massachusetts constitution declared that each town must be required by law to support "public Protestant teachers of piety, reUgion, and moraUty." Individuals might be com peUed to attend religious services, if there were any which they could "conscientiously and conveniently attend," and to pay taxes for the support of some kind of Protestant service. Though some concessions were made to Baptists and other dissenters from the Congregational system, complete separation of church and state did not come either in Massa chusetts or Connecticut untU the nineteenth century. The change came more easily in Virginia, because the Anglican estabUshment had depended partly on the support of the British government, which was now withdrawn. The Virginia bffi of rights contained an eloquent declaration in favor of reUgious Uberty, but left the question of a church establish ment stffi open. A strong party, composed largely of Epis copalians but including some Presbyterians, favored an "assessment" law which would secure public support for some kind of Protestant worship. Patrick Henry favored this measure; but Madison and Jefferson opposed any kind of state support, and it was defeated by a narrow major ity. In 1785 Jefferson's bffi for absolute reUgious Uberty THE AMERICAN CHURCHES 553 was passed by the legislature. No Virginian could thenceforth be compelled to attend or support any form of reUgious wor ship or be discriminated against in any other way because of his reUgious opinions. The constitutional changes of the Revolution affected Reorganiza- the American churches in various ways. For the Episco- American paUans, poUtical separation from the mother country carried churches. with it also separation from the state church of Eng land. Because of technical difficulties resulting from par Uamentary control of the EngUsh church, the first American bishop was consecrated by bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church, which was not restricted by any state connection. Before long, bishops were chosen in other states, and by 1789 the American branch of the AngUcan communion was reorganized as the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States. About the same time the Roman CathoUcs also adjusted themselves to the new political situation. Some of the Maryland CathoUcs had taken an active part in the Revolution, and one of their number, Charles CarroU of CarroUton, signed the Declaration of Independence. They now got rid of the harsh legislation from which they had suffered before the Revolution, and presently took the lead in securing from the Pope an organization independent of the Vicar- ApostoUc in London. In 1789 a papal buU authorized the consecration of John CarroU, a cousin of Charles, as the first bishop of this church in the new republic. Other churches also were forming national organizations. In 1788 the Presbyterians organized a general assembly, and in 1784 John Wesley took the first steps leading to the formation of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States. By 1789 these reorganized churches and several others were ready to cooperate in the great American experi ment of "free churches in a free state." Important as it was to estabUsh the principles of poUtical Uberty in statutes and constitutions, some Americans at 554 REPUBLICAN PRINCIPLES IN RECONSTRUCTION The struggle for a democraticsodety. Primogeniture abol ished. Antislawery movement. State en couragementof education. least realized that political democracy could not be main tained without a democratic society. No one felt more strongly than Jefferson how much needed to be done in this direction, especiaUy in his own state of Virginia. One of the first measures of this kind which he advocated and carried through was a law abolishing primogeniture in order to make possible a wider distribution of landed property. In this way he hoped to reduce the influence of the great landowning famUies. Another subject which troubled many Americans was slavery. When Granvffie Sharp, a weU-known leader of the EngUsh antislavery movement, suggested that this institution could hardly be reconcUed with American pro fessions about the rights of man, John Jay, then president of an antislavery society in New York, could only reply that American opinion was moving in the right direction. Some Virginians also were embarrassed by this anomaly, and Jefferson actuaUy prepared a plan for gradual emancipation. Realizing, however, that emancipation alone would not solve the race problem, he favored colonizing the negroes in some other country. Measured by actual numbers, the results of this humanitarian phUosophy were disappointing. In New England, where the number of negroes had always been smaU, emancipation was easUy accompUshed within a few years after the Revolution, and Pennsylvania passed a gradual emancipation act in 1780; but none of the other middle states took decisive action before 1789, and south of Mason and Dixon's line, the reahzation of Jefferson's ideal was postponed to a distant future. In the republican phUosophy of this period, state encour agement of education had an important place; for if the people were to be sovereign, they must be educated to carry this new responsibUity. Among the state constitu tions, that of Massachusetts was the first to give education a prominent place among the duties of the state. A remark- EDUCATION 555 able clause, drafted by John Adams, set forth the dependence of free government upon the general diffusion of "wisdom and knowledge"; legislators and magistrates must therefore "cherish the influence of literature and the sciences, and aU seminaries of them." Jefferson was equaUy interested in education and he proposed a series of pubUc institutions ex tending from elementary schools to a much improved and enlarged WUliam and Mary CoUege. Elementary instruc tion was to be free and the best pupils were then to be selected for higher education. Once more, however, Jeffer son's ideas were too advanced for his feUow citizens and many years passed before his plan of higher education was partly realized in the new University of Virginia. Yet some real progress was made during this period. State funds, especially revenues from public lands, were set aside for educational purposes. The North with its more fuUy developed town life stffi led in systematized public educa tion; but North Carolina and Georgia took then: first steps toward the estabUshment of state institutions of higher learning, a policy afterwards developed more fully in the state universities of the West. 1% The work of these early conventions and legislatures A record of was marked by many inconsistencies; and yet, taken as states- a whole, it makes a remarkable record of constructive states- manshiP- manship. Each state had, of course, its own problems which it was free to solve in its own way; but underlying aU differences there was a common body of political doctrine which, though drawn from various sources, may fairly be caUed American. The making of an adequate federal union was more The making difficult and took more time; but even here the experi- union. mental stage was short and the whole process of construction surprisingly brief when judged in the light of previous human experience. It was less than thirteen years after the Decla ration of Independence when George Washington took his 556 REPUBLICAN PRINCIPLES IN RECONSTRUCTION Colonialprecedents. The British Empire. Distributionof govern mentalpowers. place as the head of a new government which has now been tested longer than any other constitutional government in the world except that of Great Britain. In federal as weU as state organization the American people profited largely by their experience in the British Empire. Under that system the self-governing colonies of Rhode Island and Connecticut could determine more matters for themselves than they now can as states of the American Union. In the proprietary colonies the inhabitants had less power; but here also the actual control of colonial business by the imperial government was comparatively limited. Even in a royal province the representative assembUes could go very far in the practical exercise of self-government. So Jefferson and some other radical thinkers came to regard the old empire as a kind of federal system. Virginia, accord ing to Jefferson's theory, was a free commonwealth united to the commonwealth of England by a common king and not legaUy subject to the British ParUament. Jefferson was exceptional among the revolutionary leaders in the extreme to which he pushed this theory, but others were more or less consciously moving in the same direction, and the idea of some roughly defined boundary between the legitimate authority of Parliament and that of a colonial assembly was fairly general. The actual distribution of business between imperial and colonial governments also had some significance for later American history. GeneraUy speaking, foreign affairs, the regulation of commerce either with foreign countries or between different jurisdictions within the empire, the regulation of coinage, and the establishment of postal facul ties, were aU generally regarded as proper business for the imperial government, however unpopular its action might be in any particular case. On the other hand, certain functions now exercised by the federal government were left mainly to the colonial assembUes. With some exceptions THE FEDERAL IDEA 557 customs duties were fixed by colonial statutes rather than by acts of Parliament. Of course such action was not entirely uncontroUed; each colony was expected to conform to its charter, to certain royal instructions, and to the general principles of English law. If these limitations were ignored, a provincial law might either be disaUowed or de clared invaUd by the English Privy CouncU in its capacity as a court of appeals. Aside from such precedents as could be drawn from the Colonial British imperial system, American statesmen were doubt- and^jerts less influenced by some of the earlier projects for colonial for union- union, not so much by the rather limited New England confederation of 1643 as by the discussion which went on durmg the last quarter century of British rule. It was then that the conflict with France and the new problems resulting from the expansion of the empire led men to think more seriously of some political organization which might act for America as a whole. Most Americans, however, were then too intent on preserving their local independence, and so the Albany plan of 1754 proved no more acceptable in the colonies than it did in England. The taxation controversy also revived interest in some sort of federation, through which America might contribute its share of imperial revenue instead of acting only through a large number of provincial assemblies. Franklin's correspondence with GaUoway and FrankUn and others shows a steady interest in this subject untU he finaUy a oway' became convinced that such a constitutional adjustment within the empire was impracticable. Even after Franklin had given up hope, GaUoway urged an American federation as the best means of holding the empire together, and his plan of 1774, which was rejected by the First Continental Congress, contained some features of the Albany plan. As the prospect of federation within the empire faded Discussion away the Whig leaders set to work on plans of their own. continental Even in the First Continental Congress, Patrick Henry Congress. 558 REPUBLICAN PRINCIPLES IN RECONSTRUCTION State sovereignty,1775-1781. The Continental as a govern ment. seemed to favor a permanent union with proportionate representation. In the early days of the Second Continental Congress Franklin presented a plan of his own, based on the idea of proportional representation and giving Congress fairly Uberal powers. A year passed, however, before the subject was taken up seriously and, though a committee was then appointed to draft a plan of confederation, the war was nearly over before any federal constitution was adopted. The actual government of the United States from r775 to 1 78 1 was, therefore, in the Continental Congress, whose only political authority consisted of the credentials given by each state to its delegates; these were not only extremely indefi nite, but could be changed or revoked at wffi, so that Con gress was whoUy dependent upon the cooperative spirit of the individual states. Even in. matters of general interest like the conduct of the war and negotiations with foreign powers, the states sometimes acted quite independently. So far, therefore, as legal theory is concerned, the case for state sovereignty seems to be complete and the Continental Con gress appears as a merely diplomatic body, consisting of representatives from independent states which found it con venient to act together for the time being. It is equaUy clear, however, that no mere diplomatic body had ever exercised such a wide range of functions as were actuaUy performed by the Continental Congress. It maintained a Continental army, appointed the commander in chief, issued a Continental currency, incurred debts for the Union without consulting the states, and finaUy, in 1778, ratified a treaty with a foreign power. Virginia may also have thought it necessary to ratify the treaty; but this was an exceptional proceeding. Certainly the American negotiators of that treaty were acting on the general author ity of Congress and not on the instructions of thirteen differ ent states. Without a formal constitution, Congress managed to organize executive departments for war, foreign affairs, ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION 559 and finance, as weU as a general postal service. It even organized a court for the trial of appeals in prize cases. From this practical point of view, it can hardly be denied that the Continental Congress, with aU its obvious limita tions, was a de facto federal government, acting for a real political entity known to the outside world as the United States of America. AU this time, however, the need of a more tangible Framing constitution was fuUy recognized. The committee on confed- Ariiefes of eration, of which Dickinson was chairman, reported to Confedera- Congress about a week after the Declaration of Independ ence was adopted. There was some debate then; but it was not untU November 15, 1777, that Congress agreed on a document to be recommended to .the states. Within a year ten states ratified; but throe held out, and it was March, 1781, before the consent of Maryland made it possible to put the new constitution into effect. The faUure to reach an agreement earUer was due partly Question to the pressure of war business, but chiefly to serious dif- sentation. ferences of opinion about certain provisions of the Articles of Confederation. The delegates from Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Virginia were anxious to have in the new government a representation proportional not only to then- population but to the financial and mUitary burdens which they had to bear. The drafting committee, however, yielded to the demand of the smaller states for equal repre sentation and after a vigorous debate that plan was finaUy adopted. The debate on the powers of Congress was less impor- Question of tant; for there was then Uttle sentiment in favor of a strong j^d^™ federal government. On one issue, however, the smaller states took a somewhat nationalistic attitude. That was the question of the western lands. The states which claimed this territory were determined to have their titles recognized; and the Articles of Confederation as finaUy adopted declared 560 REPUBLICAN PRINCDPLES IN RECONSTRUCTION The Articles comparedwith other federations. State "sov ereignty"asserted. that no state should be deprived of territory for the benefit of the United States. Interpreting this statement in the Ught of Virginia's recent reassertion of her sea-to-sea claim, the non-claimant states objected strenuously. From any point of view, a union in which a single state controUed such a vast territory would certainly be quite unequal in fact, whatever the machinery of government might be. The most persistent champion of the non-claimant states was Maryland, which, though voted down in Congress, kept up the fight by refusing to ratify the Articles and so helped toward a reconsideration of the whole question. The Articles were aUowed to stand as they were, but with the definite expectation that Virginia would give up her claims to land north of the Ohio River. It is not quite fair to the Articles of Confederation to compare them always with the riper federal systems of the present time — the present Constitution of the United States, the Canadian and Australian federations, or the reorganized repubUc of Switzerland. Compared with any of these the Confederation of 1781 was feeble enough, but comparison with previous experiments in federal government gives a different impression. In delegating to Congress exclusive jurisdiction over foreign relations, however ineffec tive that jurisdiction may have been, the Articles of Con federation went farther than the Holy Roman Empire, or the German confederation of 1815. The Dutch and Swiss unions were both very loose and they had much smaller areas to deal with. With aU its faults, this first constitution of the United States was a serious contribution to the art of federal government. The governmental machinery of the Confederation was substantiaUy that worked out by Congress before the Articles were adopted. The division of functions between Congress and the states also remained practicaUy the same. What the written document did, in the main, was to state more THE CONFEDERATION AND THE STATES 561 definitely both the underlying theory of the system and certain methods of doing business. The authors of this constitution took infinite pains to secure what they caUed the "sovereignty" of the states, though some of them would probably have defined that word in a less absolute sense than that later assumed either by nationahsts or by advocates of "state rights." Undoubtedly the Articles were made by states and for states. Like a treaty made by a group of nations, its provisions could not be changed except by unan imous consent. The Confederation was a "league of friend ship" in which each member retained its "sovereignty, free dom, and independence," with "every power, jurisdiction and right" not "expressly delegated to the United States." As in a diplomatic congress, each member state voted as a unit and had an equal vote; delegates, though annuaUy elected, could be recaUed at any time by the state which chose them and supported them. The general principle governing the division of powers Federal between the federal and state governments was that Congress functions. was responsible for the external relations of the United States and to a very limited extent for interstate relations. So far as foreign relations were concerned, the Articles were fairly consistent in delegating power to Congress and with holding it from the states. No state could, without the consent of Congress, make a treaty, send or receive diplomatic agents, or engage in war except in case of actual invasion. Without the approval of Congress no state could keep a standing army or navy, or even make an agreement with another member of the Union. In this respect, then, Con gress took the place of the British imperial government. Other imperial precedents were foUowed in giving Congress imperial power to regulate the value of coins, establish a postal service, pre( and deal with Indian affairs. Unfortunately the weak fea tures of the old system were also taken over. The federal army was to be secured by requisitions on the states, simUar 562 REPUBLICAN PRINCIPLES IN RECONSTRUCTION Citizenshipand inter state comity. Defects of organization. Question of a federal judiciary. to those made by the British government on the provincial assembUes; the taxing power which the colonists denied to ParUament they also denied to their own Congress. In the matter of commerce Congress was worse off than Parlia ment. Not only could each state estabUsh its own tariff and tonnage duties, as in colonial times, but Congress had no general authority to regulate either foreign or interstate commerce, except to a limited extent by means of com mercial treaties. One constructive feature of the Articles which has not been sufficiently appreciated is the clause which guarantees to citizens going from one state to another the privUege of citizenship in the latter. This may be considered the first step in the direction of a reaUy national citizenship. A simUar spirit was shown in the agreement that the records and judicial proceedings of one state should receive fuU credit in the others. The deficiencies of the Confederation are weU known. Not only was the authority of Congress closely limited, but it did not have the organization necessary for doing effec tively the work assigned. The rule requiring nine states to approve aU important measures often amounted prac ticaUy to a requirement of unanimous consent; for there were often only nine or ten states present. EquaUy vicious was the giving of executive as weU as legislative authority to Congress. Notwithstanding the demonstrated weakness of committee management, no provision was made for a central executive which should leave Congress free for strictly legislative business. A few timid steps were taken toward a federal judiciary; Congress might estabUsh courts for trying crimes committed on the high seas and for hearing appeals in prize cases; there was also a plan for the arbitration of interstate dis putes in land cases. Little use, however, was made of these powers, and the appellate court for prize cases disappeared NATURE OF THE CONFEDERATION 563 after the war. The arbitration machinery was indeed used to settle the long-standing controversy between Pennsyl vania and Connecticut about the Wyoming valley, and Livingston wrote of this to Lafayette as a model for some future international court, where "all disputes in the great re public of Europe wUl be tried in the same way." In no other case, however, was such a decision actually ren dered under the Confederation. The absence of a federal judiciary made Congress dependent on the state courts for the enforcement of its wffi on individual citizens, and this ffiustrates the fundamental weakness of the Confederation. So far as the individual was concerned, his primary aUegiance was to the state in which he lived and the federal government could not reach him directly. Congress could make a treaty, but its enforcement depended on the efficiency and good wUl of state governments. Even after the adoption of the Articles, men differed as Nature to the kind of government they had established. John system. Adams caUed Congress a " diplomatic assembly " and ^'^ws" Livingston, in a circular letter to the governors, spoke of "independent states, united not by the power of a sovereign but by their common interest." Yet Livingston spoke in the same letter of "national objects" for which aU should work together, and a committee of which Jefferson was chairman declared in 1784 that the states were "consolidated in one federal republic." In a simUar spirit, Congress de clared in its instructions to Jefferson and other ministers about commercial treaties, that "these United States" should be considered "as one nation, upon the principles of the Federal Constitution." Even in 1787, the members of the Federal Convention disagreed about the nature of the Con federation. In short, the Union of 1781 was of such a kind that men found it hard to speak consistently, thinking of it in one aspect as a league of "independent states" and in another as " one federal repubhc." 564 REPUBLICAN PRINCIPLES IN RECONSTRUCTION General accounts. CoUected sources. PoUticaltheory. Reconstruction in the states. Virginia. Pennsyl vania. Massachu setts. Sources on the states. Beginningsof federal government. Sources. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES Channing, United States, III, chs. XIV, XVTJI. Van Tyne, American Revolution, chs. IX, XI, with McLaughUn, Confedera tion and Constitution, ch. III. Johnson, A., Readings in American Constitutional History, nos., 17-27. Merriam, C. E., American Political Theories, 74-95. Dunning, W. A., Political Theories from Luther lo Montesquieu, chs. X, XII, and his Political Theories, Rousseau to Spencer, 91-99. Bancroft, United States (author's last revision), V, pt. IV, ch. LX. Fiske, J., Critical Period, 64-89. Jameson, J. F., Intro duction to the Constitutional History of the States {Johns Hopkins Studies, IV, no. 5). Beard, C. A., Economic Interpretation of the Constitution, ch. IV. Eckenrode, H. J., Revolution in Virginia, chs. VI, XII. Henry, Patrick Henry, I, ch. XVH. Rowland, George Mason, I, chs. V- VII., Biographies of Jefferson by D. Muzzey and W. E. Dodd {Statesmen of the Old South). Hunt, G., Madison. Lincoln, Revolutionary Movement in Pennsylvania, ch. XIV. Cushing, H. A., Transition from Provincial to Commonwealth Government {Columbia Studies, VII), especiaUy chs. VI-LX. Morison, S. E., Adoption of the Constitution in Massachusetts, 1780 (Mass. Hist. Soc, Proceedings, L, 353-411). State constitutions in Poore, B. P., Charters and Constitutions, and Thorpe, F. M., Colonial and State Constitutions. Adams, J., Works, IV, especiaUy 185-267, 283-298. Jefferson, Writings (Ford edition), H, III (especiaUy Notes on Virginia, Queries, XIII-XIX). Madison, Writings (Hunt edition), I, II. McLaughUn et al., Source Problems in United States History, Problems, III, IV. Jameson, J. F., Essays in the Constitutional History of the United States, chs. I, IH. SmaU, A. W., Beginnings of American Nationality {Johns Hopkins Studies, VIII, nos. I, H). Van Tyne, Sovereignty in the American Revolution {Am. Hist. Review, XII, 520-545-) Hart and Channing, American History Leaflets, nos. 14 (Plans of Union, 1690-1776) and 20 (Articles of Confederation and pre liminary documents). Debates in Continental Congress, Journals, VI, 1076-1083, 1098-1106 (Library of Congress edition). CHAPTER XXVI FEDERAL PROBLEMS, 1783 TO 1787 So far as the conduct of the Revolutionary War was con- The prob lems of peace. cerned, the adoption of the Articles of Confederation e ' "' seemed to make Uttle difference. The real test came after wards, when the states were no longer held together by the necessity of defending themselves against foreign armies. Congress could not go on indefinitely borrowing from France, creditors were pressing for the settlement of their accounts, and every department seemed to bristle with difficult, almost insoluble, problems. In the organization of executive departments Congress Executive made no substantial advance. The disbanding of the ^p**11"^3- Revolutionary army lessened the importance of the war department and for a time there was no secretary in charge; in 1785, however, General Henry Knox was appointed to that office. In the management of the finances, Congress actuaUy took a step backward. In 1784 Robert Morris, dis gusted with his thankless task of staving off creditors and writing futile appeals to the state governments, resigned his post as superintendent. His place was never fiUed, but Congress appointed instead a treasury board of three mem bers. In foreign affairs, Congress did somewhat better. Shortly after Livingston's resignation from the secretaryship, John Jay. he was succeeded by John Jay, who, fresh from his experience abroad, might fairly be caUed an expert diplomatist. One point which Jay insisted on was that aU foreign correspond ence must pass through his hands before going to Congress. The personnel of the Confederation Congress was stronger S6S 566 FEDERAL PROBLEMS, 1 783-1 787 Personnelof the Con federationCongress. Irregularattendance. than has commonly been supposed, though it suffers from comparison with the signers of the Declaration or the members of the Constitutional Convention. There were other posts more attractive to able men than a seat in a body which had little real authority and where experience was so much disparaged that members could not serve more than three consecutive years. Of the men who stood out at the begin ning of the Revolution few took part in the Confederation Congress. Washington was enjoying his retirement at Mount Vernon, though his correspondence kept him in touch with leaders in other states. Franklin was abroad at first and later was made president of his state councU. Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry devoted themselves chiefly to state poUtics, and John Adams spent the whole period in the diplomatic service abroad. Not aU the dele gates, however, were second-rate politicians. Virginia sent Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, aU three of whom were active members and left their mark on some important measures. Among the New England members were Roger Sherman, Oliver EUsworth, and Rufus King; HamUton sat for New York, and Charles Pinckney, later an influential member of the Federal Convention, represented South Carolina. In fact, a large proportion of the members of that convention profited by more or less experience in the Confed eration Congress. Congress was, however, badly hampered by its con stitution and the neghgence of the states. An attendance of eleven states was unusuaUy good, and under the nine-state rule two or three obstinate individuals could often prevent the passage of important measures. The Congress which was to ratify the peace treaty was supposed to meet at AnnapoUs in November, 1783; but more than a fortnight later only six states were represented, and only seven were present to receive Washington's impressive resignation of his commission as commander in chief. PROBLEM OF THE ARMY 567 The new year began without a quorum to act upon the treaty, and it was not untU January 14, with barely nine states present, that this important transaction was completed. This discreditable incident was fairly typical. Some months earlier, Congress had an even more humffiating experience, A peripatetic when it was forced by the mutiny of a few Pennsylvania Consress- troops to leave PhUadelphia and take refuge at Princeton, New Jersey. Later it migrated in succession to Annapolis, Trenton, and finally New York. It was with such handicaps that Congress had to take up a whole series of complicated problems. One urgent matter was the disbanding of the army, Settling always a difficult problem for the leaders of a successful ^y* e revolution. Almost from the beginning it had been hard for the poUticians and their constituents to appreciate the point of view of the army and its officers. During the war officers and men had been poorly and irregularly paid, and when peace arrived they faced the prospect of going back to civU life without adequate security for the settlement of then- just claims. When the preliminary treaty was signed the officers had a general promise that they should receive half pay for life; but in the Confederation Congress, with its nine-state rule, it seemed impossible to carry out this agree ment. Aside from the desperate condition of the finances, there were many who had what Madison caUed "a penu rious spirit" about their obUgations to the army. Washington was especiaUy troubled because he sym- Washington pathized with the officers and yet could appreciate the army. e difficulties of Congress. WhUe he was doing his best to keep the army from violent measures, others were not so scrupu lous. In the autumn of 1782 Washington wrote that the patience of the army was almost exhausted and that there was danger of serious trouble. Already he had found it necessary to rebuke an officer who suggested the desirabffity of a monarchy, with Washington himself as king. The 568 FEDERAL PROBLEMS, 1 783-1 787 "Newburg addresses." Action of Finance. The requi sition system. Proposed amendments. crisis came in March, 1783, when some discontented officers at Newburg, New York, proposed a meeting to discuss the pay question, declaring that the time for moderate measures had passed. Fortunately Washington took the matter promptly in hand. Meeting the officers himself he urged them not to mar the patriotic record made in their years of service together; at the same time he promised to support their legitimate demands. A com mittee of officers was accordingly appointed to take the matter up with Congress, which now realized the necessity of doing somethmg and finally agreed to full pay for five years instead of half pay for life. This was at least a definite acknowledgment of obhgation and in 1783 the army was peacefuUy disbanded. The chief reason for this and other embarrassments was of course the lack of a proper financial system. The requisition method worked no better for Congress than it had for the British government, notwithstanding the solemn promise that aU such obUgations would be "inviolably ob served." The amount of money required to meet the run ning expenses of government at that time would now seem quite insignificant, averaging $400,000 a year for the first five years of peace; but considerably larger amounts were needed to make the necessary payments on the public debt. Accord ingly, Congress asked the states for $8,000,000 for the year 1782 and for an additional $2,000,000 for 1783. Of these amounts, however, only about $1,500,000 was actuaUy paid up to the end of 1783. Even before the Articles went into effect, their weakness was recognized by some of the leaders, and in 178 1 Congress proposed an amendment authorizing a federal duty of five per cent on imports, to pay the interest on the public debt. Modest as this proposal was, it did involve a real change in the character of the Union; for if it had been adopted federal agents would have coUected money directly from individual FINANCIAL PROBLEMS 569 citizens within the states. So it is on the whole less strange that the amendment was defeated than that it should actu aUy have been ratified by aU the states except Rhode Island. To the stubborn Rhode Islanders a congressional coUector seemed almost as objectionable as his British predecessors. To meet this objection, Congress proposed in 1783 the "revenue amendment," authorizing, for twenty-five years, certain duties to be levied by Congress through collectors named by the states. This would provide only a part of the revenue needed; for the rest Congress would depend on requisitions, with the understanding that each state would set apart certain revenues for the purpose. This amendment was discussed at intervals for four years but received even less support than the five-per-cent scheme. Congress also considered the possibility of some compulsory process for coUecting requisitions, but never got so far as to propose a formal amendment for this purpose. A government which could not pay its current expenses Coinage and or the interest on its debts was not likely to meet other currency- responsibUities, and it was certain to have a depressing effect on private business. EspeciaUy demoralizing was the depreciated paper money, issued both by Congress and by the states, and the absence of any uniform standard of values. The Spanish doUar, still the most important metaffic coin, passed in various ratios to the EngUsh pounds, shillings, and pence in which business transactions were ordinarily calcu lated. To these uncertainties must be added the widespread debasement of the coinage, through clipping or otherwise. For any merchant who tried to do business outside of his own neighborhood this confusion of values was, of course, a very serious matter. Among those who realized the urgent need of reform in this respect were Gouverneur Morris, a clever young New Yorker, who served under Robert Morris in the department of finance, and Thomas Jefferson. Both worked out plans for a decimal system, which was 57° FEDERAL PROBLEMS, 1 783-1 787 Foreign commerce. BritishpoUcy. Commercialtreaties. Helplessnessof Congress. finaUy agreed upon, with the Spanish dollar as the unit. The new plan was not, however, put into effect under the Confederation. There was simUar uncertainty about foreign and inter state commerce. Whatever might be said against the British colonial policy, it did establish a system of known rules. Under that system, American ships were limited in then- trade with foreign countries; but in the ports of England and her colonies they shared the privileges of the British merchant marine. In 1783, no one knew what to expect. There were, indeed, some Englishmen who were wffiing to go far in promoting trade relations with the colonies. Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, stimulated Uberal thinking about international trade, among statesmen as weU as among political phUosophers. A strong American government might perhaps have secured more concessions; but the conservative forces in England soon f easserted them selves, and orders in councU were issued which, among other things, excluded American shipping from the West Indies. To offset the loss of former commercial privUeges within the British Empire, Congress hoped for concessions from other nations. Franklin, Adams, and Jefferson were ap pointed commissioners to negotiate treaties for this purpose and a few were actuaUy secured, including one with Prussia in 1785 and a consular convention with France in 1788. In general, however, the results were disappointing. After aU it was harder to develop trade with continental Europe than with English merchants, who spoke the same language and whose business methods had long been famUiar. So the great bulk of American foreign trade was carried on with England, and EngUsh statesmen concluded that they could get what they wanted without making substantial con cessions in return. This attitude was naturaUy annoying to the Americans, and John Adams, the first American minister in London, did his best to change it, both by diplomatic COMMERCE AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS 571 methods and by trying to persuade his countrymen to adopt retaliatory measures. Some such legislation was attempted by individual states without much effect but Congress could do nothing without an amendment to the Articles, which the states refused to adopt. In the matter of interstate commerce, Congress was interstate even worse off, since the subject was reserved exclusively to commerce- the states. Virginia, for instance, in levying tonnage duties, discriminated in favor of its own shipping as against that of its neighbors, and states which controUed important harbors or access to interior waterways sometimes made unfair use of these advantages. New York's discriminatory duties exasperated New Jersey to such an extent that the latter state proceeded to tax a Ughthouse buUt by the New Yorkers on Sandy Hook. Scarcely less serious than these irritating controversies was the inabffity of the states to get together in constructive plans for the improvement of water ways and simUar enterprises. Domestic policies were complicated by international dis- Foreign putes, expeciaUy with the British and the Spaniards. In airs' 1784, when Jay took charge of foreign affairs, no progress had been made in settling any of the outstanding issues. In the following year, however, a step of some importance was taken when John Adams appeared at London as the John Adams first of a long series of distinguished Americans who have British represented the United States at the British court. The court- reception of this arch-rebel by his former sovereign was a striking event, and the bearing of both men was worthy of the occasion. Adams expressed his desire to help restore " the old good humor between people who, though separated by an ocean, and under different governments, have the same language, a simUar religion, and kindred blood." King George answered in a simUar spirit, but little was done to give the sentiment practical effect. The new prime minister, WiUiam Pitt the younger, 572 FEDERAL PROBLEMS, 1783-1787 British was a great man with Uberal views on many questions; Axunge/ Dut> s0 iar as Anglo-American relations are concerned, pitt- he missed a great opportunity. For several years his gov ernment faUed to send any regular minister to the United States, and those who later were chosen for that post were quite unfit for so difficult a service. In the absence of a minis ter, British interests were largely in the hands of consular agents at New York and PhUadelphia, who sent home dismal accounts of the American situation. Meantime, Adams in London was discouraged by his inability to make any real headway or even to secure punctual observance of the peace treaty. Western In the matter of the western posts, the British ministry Mtfshdebts. was influenced by the powerful fur-trading interest and by Canadian officials in sympathy with that interest; but the American case also suffered because the states did not keep their agreements about the loyalists and the British debts, a fact of which Adams was duly reminded when he made his formal demand for the surrender of the posts. Jay inves tigated the subject carefuUy and concluded that, so far as many of the states were concerned, the British contention was weU founded. He therefore proposed that Congress should pass a resolution denying the right of any state to construe, limit, or obstruct a treaty; each state was also asked to pass a general law repealing all acts in conflict with the peace treaty. Such a resolution was accordingly passed by Congress and some of the objectionable legislation was actuaUy repealed. Rutgers v. One state law mentioned by Jay was the New York Trespass Act, which permitted Whigs, whose property had been held by Tory occupants under the orders of the British mffitary authorities, to recover damages. In the case of Rutgers v. Waddington, the Tory defendant, represented by Alexander HamUton, questioned the validity of the state law on the ground that it was in conflict with Wadimgton. RELATIONS WITH SPAIN 573 the treaty and with international law. In spite of the intense anti-Tory feeling, the court ruled in favor of the defendant on the ground that his occupation of the property under mUitary orders was in accordance with international law, and that state legislation must be so construed as not to conflict with that principle. In short, the Trespass Act, though not definitely declared invalid, was practicaUy set aside. The decision was unpopular and the legislature denounced it; but it attracted attention outside of New York and Washington expressed his hearty approval. GeneraUy speaking, however, state legislatures, in New York or else where, were quite free to violate treaties ff they pleased. Under such circumstances, foreign governments could hardly be blamed for wondering whether they were dealing with one government or with thirteen. Though the settlement of Indian affairs and the coloni- Spanish- zation of the Northwest were held back by the faUure of compUca" the United States to take over the western posts, these tions- complications were just then less dangerous than the faUure to reach an agreement with Spain. With this subject Jay was quite familiar through his long experience abroad. His first business was to get Spain to accept the clauses of the Anglo-American treaty, fixing the southern boundary of the United States and guaranteeing the free navigation of the Mississippi; he wished also to make favorable trade Florida and arrangements with Spain, and her colonies. On the first ^pfIlssls'' two points, the Spaniards were stubborn. They knew that the United States had agreed in 1782 to accept somewhat less territory if Florida remained in British hands and they insisted that the lower Mississippi must be regarded as a strictly Spanish river. Confronted with an apparently hopeless deadlock and Jay's poUcy. realizing the interest of the seaboard states in a general commercial treaty, Jay was wffiing to give up temporarily the free navigation of the Mississippi in return for other 574 FEDERAL PROBLEMS, 1 783-1 787 Opposition of the West and South. Beginningsof American colonialpoUcy. concessions. A majority of the states were apparently willing to make the proposed concession but not enough to make the nine votes required, and the feeling ran high. The Kentuckians were so angered by this supposed betrayal of their interests that some of their leaders were ready to deal directly with the Spaniards. The air was fuU of intrigues and at any moment the government was likely to have its hand forced by some hot-headed frontiersman. The south erners also, especially the Virginians, were deeply concerned, financiaUy and otherwise, with the future of the West. Patrick Henry was particularly violent in his denunciation of Jay's proposal, and Madison, who had been trying to get his fellow Virginians into a more helpful attitude towards Congress, was much discouraged by the effect of this discus sion in exciting sectional feeling against the northeastern states. Ineffective as the federal government was, in most respects, there is one great achievement which goes far to redeem it, namely, the inauguration of a unique and admirable colonial policy. The underlying principle of this new policy was taken by the Confederation from its revolutionary predeces sor, the Continental Congress, which had declared as early as 1780 that any western lands ceded by the states should be held temporarUy as federal domain, but ultimately formed into self-governing members of the Union. Nevertheless, when the Articles of Confederation went into effect, in 1781, there was not an acre of territory to which the United States had a perfectly clear title. The Virginia cession of that year made so many reservations that Congress refused to accept it, and three years passed before a satisfactory deed was executed. The Virginia deed of 1784 marks the. real beginning of a federal domain, and during the next two years the title to the Northwest was further cleared by the surrender of the Massachusetts strip in 1785 and the partial Connecticut cession of 1786. Here at last was the PUBLIC LANDS 575 opportunity to work out a definitely American colonial policy. In the administration of the new federal territory, two distinct problems had to be solved. There was, first, the question of the land itself. How was it to be managed whUe in the possession of the government and on what conditions should it be turned over to actual settlers? The second and equaUy important question was that of government for the present and future inhabitants of the district. In considering both these questions, and especially the Genesis of first, the impecunious Confederation Congress was naturaUy jandb«iystem. anxious to use the pubUc lands either to bring in revenue directly or to satisfy the claims of the army and other public creditors. For this purpose it was important to adopt an orderly system of land surveys, which would enable both the government and the purchaser of land to know just where they stood. The New England people had been accustomed to township grants; but, so far, the western lands, more particularly in Kentucky and Tennessee, had been taken up in a very unsystematic fashion. North of the Ohio, however, where very little land had been occupied, there was a chance to develop a weU-considered permanent pohcy. Among the members of Congress most interested in this subject was Jefferson, who had a plan by which the western lands were to be marked out in "hundreds," each ten mUes square. After his withdrawal from Congress, the plan was The Land finally developed into the Land Ordinance of 1785, which tf^?ce provided for rectangular surveys but substituted for Jef ferson's hundreds the township unit of thirty-six square mUes, marked off by north and south meridians and by intersecting lines running east and west. The immediate practical results were slight; but this general plan of land registration became a permanent feature of national policy. The question of governments for the western country 576 FEDERAL PROBLEMS, 1 783-1 787 Genesis of territorialgovernment. The Ordinance of 1784. The Ohio Company. was also much discussed during the whole period from r78i to 1787, and numerous projects were considered. In 1783, the Virginia delegate, Richard Bland, proposed a scheme for territories, or colonies, each covering two degrees of latitude and three of longitude. As soon as any colony had 20,000 male inhabitants it was to enter the Union on equal terms with the original states. The best known of these earUer plans was drafted by Jefferson, reported by him from a committee of which he was chairman, and finaUy adopted by Congress with important > amendments in AprU, 1784. The committee report, which covered aU territory then under federal control and any other which might subse quently be acquired, divided the whole region into "states," arranged in tiers from north to south, each state covering two degrees of latitude. In each "state" the free male adults could organize a temporary government; when the number reached 20,000 they might form a permanent con stitution; and when the population was equal to that of the smallest of the original thirteen states, they would be eligible for admission to the Union. A striking feature of this plan was the proposed "compact," embodying certain fundamental principles: repubUcan government, the exclusion of hereditary titles, and the prohibition of slavery after 1800. Congress struck out the antislavery clause and the ordi nance as a whole was never put in force; but it shows the gradual crystallization of pubUc opinion on certain broad principles of colonial poUcy. Meantime, representative men in the various states were planning for actual colonization. Conspicuous among these promoters was an organization composed largely of New England army officers, which caUed itself the Ohio Company. Through their agent, Manasseh Cutler, a versatUe clergy man, these people took the matter up with Congress and offered, if they could make satisfactory terms, to buy a large tract of land in the Northwest. Such a business ORDINANCE OF 1787 577 proposal naturaUy gave the subject a new practical impor tance, and Cutler was a skillful lobbyist. A bargain was accordingly made for the sale of a large tract to Cutler's associates. About the same time the long discussion about territorial government came to an end with the adoption of a definite constitution for the "territory of the United States northwest of the river Ohio." This Ordinance of 1787 was not the work of a moment Ordinance but the outcome of long discussion, and it was based to a o£ I?87' considerable extent on experience within the British Empire. This is especially evident in the provisions for colonial, or, as Americans prefer to caU it, territorial government. After a preliminary stage, in which the business of the district Colonial was managed by federal officials, there was to be a government pre ents' closely resembling that of an EngUsh royal province, more particularly that of Massachusetts under the charter of 1 69 1, with Congress taking the place of the King. In both cases, the governor was appointed by the federal, or imperial, government, and in both there was a representative assembly chosen by the property holders. In the Northwest Terri tory, as in provincial Massachusetts, both the central government and the colonial assembly had a share in the choice of councUors, though in somewhat different ways. The American governor, like his British predecessor, had a considerable appointing power and a veto on acts of the assembly. The framers of the ordinance were evidently not radical democrats, for they insisted on property qualifica tions — fifty acres for voters, two hundred for represent atives, and five hundred for councUors. Suggestive also is the clause prohibiting interference with private contracts, which was evidently intended to protect creditors against radical economic legislation. So far, then, as strictly colonial government is concerned, the ordinance was not strikingly original. The most significant features of the Ordinance of 1787 578 FEDERAL PROBLEMS, 1783-1787 Articles of were contained in the "Articles of Compact," which were Compact. declared to be perpetually binding both on Congress and on the people of the territory. Most memorable of aU was Article V, which provided for the ultimate transformation Organization of this American province into self-governing states, not of new stiitc s . less than three nor more than five in number. When any of these subdivisions had 60,000 free inhabitants, it could become a member of the Union with its own constitution "on an equal footing with the original states in all respects Anew whatever." The policy laid down in this article and since conception of .. ., ... , , ,. colonial carried out in the admission of more than thnty states ^ cy' represents a new conception of the relation which ought to exist between colonies and the parent state. In aU former systems, colonies had either become quite independent or had remained subordinate to the mother country. The American system makes possible permanent union, on the basis of poUtical equality, between the new commonwealth and the original members. Other pro- The "Compact" also guaranteed certain common-law "Compact." rights, such as trial by jury and the writ of habeas corpus. Religious liberty was recognized; but church establish ments were not definitely forbidden, and one of the chief reasons for maintaining schools was declared to be the pro motion of religion. The clause on education should be interpreted in the light of a provision in the Land Ordinance of 1785, setting apart the sixteenth section of every town ship for the support of schools. The humanitarian spirit of the time also found expression in a clause prescribing fan- treatment of the Indians, and in the sixth article, pro hibiting slavery. This article, though not strictly enforced for several years, certainly helped to check the westward extension of that institution. Colonization Colonization was delayed by Indian troubles; but in under federal „„ , -T _ , , , , _, . ._ supervision. 1 788 the New England promoters of the Ohio Company planted their first settlement at Marietta, on the Ohio, ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL UNREST 579 under the protection of a federal fort. This federal protection was significant of a new era in the westward movement. There was stffi plenty of room for individual initiative and self-help; but the colonization of the West was henceforth more largely under the supervision and control of the Union. These new commonwealths, at any rate, were never "sov ereign" and "independent"; for they developed under a central government which assumed for them a distinctly national character. AU this, however, was hardly appreciated by the men who were responsible for this great achievement. When the ordinance was voted, in July, 1787, Congress could hardly keep a quorum; public interest was turning to the more important gathering at PhUadelphia, which was then hammering into shape a radical reconstruction of the whole federal system. The movement for a more effective union was partly The move file work of far-sighted and broad-minded leaders who moreeffec- could look beyond state boundaries to the larger interests tiveunion- of the country as a whole, who saw things needing to be done which could not be accomplished without a strong federal or national organization. Such men, however, were few in any community. Before the movement could succeed it had to win support from another group, who could not take the larger view but were beginning to see that the weakness of Congress might have something to do with troubles nearer home. It was quite evident that many people were dissatisfied Economic with what had so far been done in the matter of political discontent. and social reconstruction. They believed that the early state constitutions gave the property-holding class an influ ence quite inconsistent with real democracy. The farmers of the interior were especiaUy convinced that, by unfair appor tionments or otherwise, the commercial and financial interests of the seaboard had secured more than their share of political power. So far, there were no formal party organizations, but 580 FEDERAL PROBLEMS, 1 783-1 787 Economicgrievances. Papermoney. there was a tendency toward political divisions based on econ omic interests. On one side there was a compact group of merchants and professional men, lenders of capital, men of education and social prestige, who felt that the revolution ary spirit was in danger of going too far. To this class be longed also many of the wealthier southern planters. On the opposite side were the farmers, the less prosperous ele ments in the towns, the men who depended on borrowed capital and felt that they were not fairly treated by then- creditors. These class conflicts were embittered by special conditions growing out of the war. Many people everywhere suffered either from the burden of war expenses or from the necessity of sudden adjustment to new conditions after the peace. With scientific taxation, the financial load might have been carried more easUy; but the taxes of that day were even less scientific than those of the present time. The New England farmer, for example, believed that the merchants were not paying their share of the cost of government. Interruption of certain lines of trade, especiaUy with the West Indies, lessened the supply of specie; but at the same time there was an abnormal demand for money to settle old obligations and pay for European goods. Credi tors, British and American, were pressing for payment; courts were again enforcing old claims; and lawyers seemed to be profiting by the troubles of their country neighbors. So there came a demand for legislation to help the debtor class; stay laws, deferring the payment of interest or princi pal, and "tender" laws providing various substitutes for specie payments. The most popular remedy was the free issue of paper money; but the success of this movement varied widely. In Virginia it was strong enough to trouble the conserva tives but was finaUy defeated; and in Pennsylvania the issues were comparatively moderate. In New England THE SHAYS REBELLION 581 the paper-money party was formidable, especially in Rhode Island, which in spite of two important commercial towns was then controUed by the rural voters. There, as elsewhere, excessive issues of paper money caused rapid depreciation, and attempts to prevent this result by compelling people to take it under penalty made matters worse. A striking incident of this long controversy was the case of Trevett Trevett v. v. Weeden, in which a Newport butcher was sued for u n' refusing to accept paper money in payment of a bill. The plaintiff's lawyer rehed on a state law authorizing the court to act in such a case without a jury trial. Thereupon Weeden' s lawyer argued that the law itself was unconsti tutional, nuU, and void; the judges did not technically com mit themselves to this doctrine, but they refused to take jurisdiction, with much the same practical result. The legislature denounced the judges but left them in office untU their terms expired. In the interior of Massachusetts the feeling was about TheShays as intense as in Rhode Island; but the conservatives were stronger and better organized, with an able leader in the person of Governor James Bowdoin. Unable to get the legislation it desired, the paper-money party turned against the government — the legislature, the judges, and the lawyers. Radical conventions were held; rioters obstructed the courts; and at the end of 1786 the movement cul minated in the Shays rebeUion led by a revolutionary vet eran. Though the federal arsenal at Springfield was in danger, Congress seemed almost helpless. Some federal guns were actuaUy used against the insurgents; but the suppression of the revolt was chiefly due to the energy of Governor Bowdoin and his associates, who financed the state campaign against the rebels by contributions from the wealthy citizens, teffing them that it was a question of giving up part of their property to save the rest. A serious danger had been averted for the time being; but 582 FEDERAL PROBLEMS, 1 783-1 787 The con servative reaction and the federal movement. there were sympathetic movements in other New England states and conservative people were stUl anxious. Even in Massachusetts, the rebels and their sympathizers were strong enough to prevent the reelection of Governor Bowdoin. Outside of New England, also, these events were followed with interest. Jefferson took the situation rather lightly, and Franklin, with his usual optimism, thought the dis turbances were not very important. Others were less cheerful. Edward Rutledge of South Carolina feared that "liberty" was degenerating into "Ucentiousness" and caUed upon "men of virtue" to keep up the fight for "good government." Jay complained that the masses were carried away by "a desire of equality in aU things" and were being played upon by unscrupulous leaders. Meantime, the fear of radicalism seemed likely to produce a reaction to the opposite extreme, untU, as Jay put it, " the more sober part of the people" might "even think of a king." Washington in his retreat at Mount Vernon was also much disturbed. Even more significant was the fact that aU over the country many conservative people of less inteffigence began to favor a new federal system in the hope that it would counteract radical tendencies within the states. General accounts. Sources. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES Channing, United States, III, chs. XV, XVII. Fiske, Critical Period, chs. III-IV. McLaughlin, Confederation and Constitu tion, chs. IV-XI. McMaster, People of the U. S., I, chs. II-IV. Bogart and Thompson, Readings in the Economic History of the U. S., 185-205. London Merchants on American Trade, 1783 {Am. Hjst. Review, XVIII, 769-780). CaUender, Selections from the Economic History of the U. S., ch. V. FrankUn, Writings (Smyth edition), LX. Jay, Correspondence, etc., III. HamUton, Writings (Lodge edition), I, especiaUy 203-228 (letter to Duane, 1780), and VIII (private correspondence). Jefferson, Writings (Ford edition), III. Madison, Writings (Hunt edition), II. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 583 Ford, W. C, Washington, II, chs. V, VI. Hunt, Madison, Biographies. chs. V-LX. Oberholtzer, Robert Morris, especiaUy chs. III-V. OUver, F. S., Hamilton, bk. II, chs. Ill, IV. Sumner, W. G, Financier and Finances of the Revolution, Finance. especiaUy II, chs. XVI-XXIII. Hertz, G. B., Old Colonial System, chs. X, XI. Fish, C. R., Commerce American Diplomacy, chs. VI-VII. Hunt, G., Department of rntacy!P°~ State, chs. II, III. PeUew, G., John Jay, ch. IX. Bates, F. G, Rhode Island and the Formation of the Union Economic {Columbia Studies), chs. Ill, IV. Warren, J. P., Confederation and ^^°^ the Shays's Rebellion {Am. Hist. Review, XI, 42-67). Henderson, Conquest of the Old Southwest, ch. XX. Hinsdale, Western B. A., Old Northwest, chs. XI-XV. Alvord, C. W., Centennial S^ti™3 History of Illinois, I, chs. XVII-XVIII. Treat, P. J., National Newest Land System, chs. I-III. Barrett, J. A., Evolution of the Ordinance of 1787 (University of Nebraska Seminary, Papers). Cutler, W. P., and J. P., Manasseh Cutler. Macdonald, Select Documents, no. 4. Hart and Channing, Documents. American History Leaflets, no. 32. Plans for revising the Articles. The idea of a convention. Virginia and Maryland conferences. CHAPTER XXVn THE GREAT CONVENTION The movement to revise the Articles of Confederation began even before they were finaUy adopted. The need of such revision was strongly felt by Washington and in r78o his young secretary, Alexander HamUton, wrote a striking letter in which he boldly suggested that Congress should assume the necessary powers by a sort of peaceful revo lution. If it had not the courage to do that, then a federal convention should be caUed to reorganize the government. In 1 78 1 Congress discussed several amendments, but the only one actuaUy recommended to the states was that author izing the five-per-cent impost. The faUure of this and other amendments proposed during the next three years showed that there was Uttle chance of carrying through any measure which required unanimous consent. Meantime, the idea of something more serious than merely patching up the Articles was spreading. One of the more advanced thinkers on this subject was Pelatiah Webster, of PhUadelphia, who published a pamphlet proposing a new federal constitution, with a Congress of two houses which could levy taxes independently of the state governments. By 1785 the plan of a federal convention was very much in the air. It was proposed by New York in 1782 and by Massachusetts in 1785, though the congressional delegates from the latter state threw cold water on the plan. The convention idea harmonized weU with a movement then under way in Virginia to secure cooperation on certain questions of interstate commerce. Such men as Washington S84 THE CONVENTION CALL 585 and Madison felt especiaUy the need of cooperation with the neighboring state of Maryland. The first tangible result of their efforts was a meeting of Virginia and Mary land commissioners, held first at Alexandria and then at Mount Vernon; but it was soon evident that their problems were too large to be solved without bringing in representatives from other states. Accordingly Virginia invited all the states to join in a convention at Annapolis. The response was dis- AnnapoUs appointing, since only Virginia and the four middle states Convention- were represented, and decisive action was clearly impossible. Fortunately, the leading spirits, especiaUy Madison and Hamilton, were determined not to adjourn without taking some forward step and they put through a resolution in favor of a new convention at Philadelphia. Without going into detaUs that might provoke antagonism, it was pro posed that this PhUadelphia convention should study the defects of the existing government and recommend such "further provisions" as they might think necessary "to render the constitution of the federal government adequate to the exigencies of the Union"; this recommendation was The Federal accordingly sent to the state governments. Congress finally of0"^" °D indorsed the proposed convention, and by persistent efforts on the part of a few leaders aU the states except Rhode Island were at last represented. Virginia, which had taken such an active part in the Delegates. movement, also set a high standard in its choice of delegates. Some revolutionary leaders, including Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, and Jefferson, were conspicuously absent, Virginia. but more significant was the fact that Washington consented to serve. Among his older coUeagues was George Mason, author of the Virginia biU of rights; from the younger men, Governor Edmund Randolph was chosen, together with James Madison. Madison, though not a spectacular person, was a hard worker, a soUd thinker, and already at thirty-six an experienced legislator. AU in aU, he was 586 THE GREAT CONVENTION Pennsylvania. Massachu setts. Connecticut. probably the most steadUy efficient worker in the convention. Next in dignity and importance was the Pennsylvania dele gation. When the convention met, Franklin was over eighty years old and his tangible contributions to the Con stitution were not important; but his concffiatory spirit was helpful in holding the convention together. When the work was done, probably no signature except that of Washington did so much as Franklin's to win popular con fidence. With Franklin sat three other signers of the Dec laration of Independence: Robert Morris, the chief repre sentative of "big business" in the convention; James Wilson, perhaps its ablest lawyer; and George Clymer, a rich PhUadelphia merchant. A younger man but already experienced in pubhc service was Gouverneur Morris. Belonging to an old New York famUy, his outlook was aristocratic and rather cynical; but he was a keen thinker and a real patriot. The Massachusetts delegation was less conspicuous than it had been in the old Continental Congress. Neither John nor Samuel Adams, the two radical leaders of 1776, was there, though John Adams probably had some indirect influence in the convention through his writings on govern ment and his part in framing the Massachusetts constitu tion of 1780. Perhaps the ablest member from the old " Bay State " was young Rufus King. On the whole, Connect icut was more strongly represented, and its senior delegate, Roger Sherman, had the advantage of long experience in pubUc service, both state and federal. He had sat in the first Continental Congress, signed the Declaration of Inde pendence, and helped to frame the Articles of Confederation. A practical business man and a sensible rather than an eloquent speaker, he was perhaps the most typical product of New England repubUcan politics. Sherman's coUeagues were younger men of conspicuous abffity, notably Oliver Ellsworth, later Chief Justice of the United States. THE DELEGATES 587 The most brilliant among the middle state delegates New York. was Alexander HamUton; but he was outvoted by his two New York coUeagues, and though he made some striking contributions to the debate, his advanced ideas of centraU- zation and strong government were not popular. In marked contrast to HamUton was the veteran John Dickinson, who, as a member from Delaware, showed something of the Delaware. same cautious temper which made him an appropriate draftsman for the Articles of Confederation. New Jersey New lersey. sent some able lawyers, including her governor, chief justice, and attorney-general. Next to Virginia among the southern delegations was South South CaroUna, with a group of rich planters and lawyers, CaroIina- two of them from one influential family. First in previous reputation was John Rutledge, a leader in the first Continen tal Congress and war governor of his state. Important younger colleagues were Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, an officer in the Revolution, and his cousin Charles Pinck ney, who though only twenty-nine years old had been active in Congress and had some definite ideas about a new consti tution. The most interesting of the Maryland members Maryland. was Luther Martin, a vigorous defender of state rights. A few members of the convention were careful students Experience of history and politics, notably Madison, WUson, and andprivate HamUton; more characteristic of them as a whole was their business. experience in public and private business. About three fourths of them had been in Congress and seven had signed the Declaration of Independence. More than half the states were represented by men who had served as governor or president, and several members had held high judicial office. Others had served in the Revolutionary army; the two Morrises, HamUton, and Madison were well informed about federal finances; and the diplomatic service was represented by Franklin, its most distinguished member. WeU-to-do merchants from New England and Pennsylvania 588 THE GREAT CONVENTION Outlookon pubUc affairs. Conventionprocedure. could speak with authority about foreign and domestic commerce. Closely associated with these business interests were the lawyers, who made up a large part of the member ship. There were also rich planters from Virginia and the Carolinas, land speculators on a large scale, and promoters of roads and canals. The convention as a whole undoubtedly represented the prosperous property-holding class. Several members were creditors of the state and federal governments, and therefore had a direct interest in the permanence of the Union. The influence of such personal and class interests in comparison with more altruistic motives undoubtedly varied with individual members. Washington, for instance, had given abundant proof of his willingness to sacrifice his personal interests to the welfare of the country at large. AU in aU, the most striking difference between the men who sat in the convention and those outsiders who remained indifferent or suspicious about the whole enterprise was that the former group had got from their experience a broader horizon, a better appreciation of general, as distinguished from purely local, interests. On May 25, the convention chose Washington as its president and settled down to its work. The sessions were held behind closed doors, the members were pledged to secrecy, and every effort was made to encourage full and frank discussion. There was no rule for cutting off debate by moving the previous question, and after the fuUest dis cussion actual voting could be deferred if any delegation so desired. Votes were taken by states, each state casting a single vote regardless of the number of its delegates. This disturbed some of the large-state delegates; but it was prob ably good politics, because in the end the individual states would have to pass on the finished work. GeneraUy speaking, the members of the convention agreed that the federal government should be made much VIRGINIA PLAN 589 stronger. The most conservative plan proposed during the Points of debates went much further in this direction than would ^^^ have been thought possible five or six years before. Starting faence. with this fundamental agreement, the chief difference which developed at the outset was whether the convention should try to strengthen the existing congressional system or should form a new government on different principles. This central issue was, however, compUcated by special interests of various kinds so that the alignment of members was at times rather confused. There was, first, a group of nationalist leaders who The nation- stood for what were called "high-toned" principles. alist leaders- Realizing for the most part that the state governments must be preserved, this group wished to make them clearly subordinate to the federal government, which should rest not on the states but directly on the people. Governmental efficiency was to be gained not only by giving Congress more power but by creating a strong executive. Some members of this group were even accused of being monarchists. The most influential of the nationalist leaders was Washington, who seldom spoke but whose opinions on fundamental issues were generally known. Other consistent advocates of this poUcy were Madison of Virginia, WUson and the Morrises of Pennsylvania, HamUton of New York, and Rufus King of Massachusetts. Their ideas were somewhat imperfectly expressed in the so-called Virginia plan, which probably represents more nearly the views of Madison than those of any other single person, though it was presented to the convention by Governor Randolph. This Virginia, or Randolph, plan proposed an entirely The Virginia new government with distinct legislative, executive, and pan- judicial departments. The legislature was to have two houses, and the states were to have proportional rather than equal representation. One house was to be elected directly by the people; and in the choice of the other the state govern- small states. 590 THE GREAT CONVENTION ments were to have partial but not complete control. The general spirit of the plan is fairly expressed by the introductory resolution, added in committee of the whole, though after wards eliminated to save the feelings of the state-rights men, that a " national government ought to be estabUshed." Large and The issue between nationalism and state rights was, however, compUcated by the conffict between the large and the smaU states. Some delegates from Virginia, for instance, who were not at aU "high-toned, " supported the original Randolph plan because it gave their own state a fuUer representation in Congress. On the other hand, some delegates from the smaU states were willing to strengthen the federal govern ment but feared that without equal representation their special interests would not be protected. In the early stages of the convention, the large-state group had the advantage, since the four leading states — Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and North Carolina — could usuaUy count on the support of South Carolina and Georgia. The New Hamp shire delegates were not present at first and Maryland was frequently divided; so the normal majority of the large-state group was six to four. The oppo- The opposition, though in a minority, was too strong to be disregarded. There were keen debaters as weU as shrewd poUticians in the Connecticut and New Jersey delegations and Martin of Maryland fought hard on the same side. These men regarded the Virginia plan as revolu tionary. They beUeved the Confederation was formed by a compact between the states, much as the state governments were supposed to be based on the "social compact" between individual citizens. Some of them argued that to base the new constitution directly on the people would be not only a violation of the federal compact but also a radical change in the relation of the state governments to their own citizens. The states were equaUy sovereign and, therefore, should be represented equaUy. The nationalist answer to this argu- sition. QUESTION OF REPRESENTATION 591 ment was that it was more important to think of individuals than of "imaginary beings caUed states"; it was grossly unfair to give an individual who happened to Uve in a smaU state several times as much influence as if he Uved in a large one.>.> - 1 During the early weeks of June the debate went on not in The New formal sessions but more freely in committee of the whole, *ersey p ' until the Virginia plan, with amendments, was provisionaUy approved. Meanwhile the opposition had been working out a rival plan, which was submitted on June 15 by Paterson of New Jersey. This was not a purely negative proposal, for it recommended additions to the powers of Congress, including a Umited taxing power and the regulation of commerce; it also proposed distinct executive and judicial departments and a method of coercing delinquent states. The vital difference between the Virginia and New Jersey plans was that the latter proposed no change in the organization of Congress, which would stiU act as the agent of "sovereign" and "equal" states. Again there was a warm debate, en- The Hamil- Uvened by some daring proposals of HamUton which went on p much farther toward centralization than anything so far presented. He proposed that the state governors should be appointed by the federal government and that the chief executive of the United States should be a powerful officer serving durmg good behavior. This was much too "high- toned" to please any except a few extremists, and the "committee of the whole" presently renewed its indorse ment of the amended Virginia plan, which now went before the convention to be thrashed out in detaU. It was not yet even a draft of a constitution, but merely a rough outline. The crisis on the question of representation came at the The question 1 • 1 -j j • , ™ repre- end of June. On June 29 the convention decided, six to sentation. four, in favor of proportionate representation in one house, and some of the smaU-state men began to think of compro mise. Ellsworth said that, assuming the Union to be "partly 592 THE GREAT CONVENTION Deadlock and com promise. The federal executive. national" and "partly federal," he would be satisfied if the "federal" or state-sovereignty idea could be recognized in the "second branch," or Senate. Accordingly he made a motion for equal representation in that house; but the large-state men were not yet ready to yield, and the motion resulted in a tie. The feeling during this debate was in tense; a Delaware representative even suggested that if the old Confederation was abandoned the smaU states might have to find "some foreign aUy" to "do them justice." The convention was now, as Sherman said, "at a fuU stop"; it was therefore agreed to refer the question of representation to a committee consisting of one member from each state. Not one of the aggressive nationaUsts was chosen for this committee, whUe the smaU states were represented by their most strenuous champions. Quite naturaUy, the committee adopted substantiaUy EUsworth's suggestion of equal representation in one house to offset proportionate representation in the other, with the unimpor tant concession that the "first branch" alone could originate money bills. Madison and WUson tried to defeat this com promise; but on July 16 it was adopted, five to four. Even with equal representation the Senate was made far less dependent on the states than the old Congress had been. Each senator, though chosen by his state legislature, was to sit for a six-year term, during which his salary was to be paid from the federal treasury, and he could vote inde pendently without being subject to recaU. Scarcely less difficult than the problem of representation was that of the federal executive. AU the plans agreed on the need of a distinct executive department, but they differed radicaUy as to its organization and powers. At one extreme was HamUton's plan for a single executive, chosen indirectly by the people, holding office during good behavior, and exercising great powers. At the opposite extreme were those who feared that a single executive would sooner or THE PRESIDENT 593, later become a monarch. On the question whether there should be an executive board or a single head, the Virginia plan was noncommittal and Randolph himself urged a plural executive; but the convention was against him by a decided majority. It was also hard to decide how the Presi- Eiection'and dent should be chosen. The Virginia and New Jersey plans Jg}^ o£ favored election by Congress and the convention seemed at first in favor of that plan. The great objection to this method was that it would make the executive too dependent on the legislature. It was therefore proposed that the President should be chosen for the fairly long term of seven years and made ineUgible for reelection. It was finaUy agreed, however, that he should get his authority from some source outside of Congress. Direct election by the people was regarded as visionary even by ardent republicans, and so it was agreed that the President should be chosen indirectly by electors, the precise method of choosing electors in each state being left to the state legislatures. The question of the President's tenure of office was decided in favor of a four-year term, with no restrictions on his reelection. After adopting the principle of a single head, efforts Concentra- were made to limit his power through some kind of councU; executive but, in the end, executive power and responsibUity were [e;?Sonsi" concentrated in the President, except that the consent of the Senate was made necessary for treaties and for certain appointments. The Constitution refers to "heads of depart ments," and they have since been formed by the President into a "cabinet"; but their advice is not binding and the President could not share his constitutional responsibility with them even if he wished to do so. This independent status of the President is to-day one of the striking differ ences between the American government and the parUa mentary systems of Great Britain and France, in which executive power is exercised by a ministry responsible not to king or president but to the legislature. 594 THE GREAT CONVENTION Checks and balances. Thejudiciary. The "su preme law" and its en forcement in the states. The idea of "checks and balances" runs through the whole work of the convention. The executive is checked by the Senate in the matter of treaties and appointments. The legislative department is checked by its division into two houses and by the President's veto, which was finaUy agreed upon instead of giving this power to a "councU of revision," composed of the executive and the judges. Even more important, perhaps, was the "check" imposed upon both these departments through the judiciary. Prac ticaUy everyone agreed on the need of a strong and inde pendent federal judiciary; but some members wished to limit it to a supreme tribunal hearing appeals from the state courts. They feared that inferior federal courts with original jurisdiction would interfere with the state judiciary. The national view prevaUed, however, and Congress was authorized to establish such courts. Federal judges were to be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate; but they were to serve during good behavior and could be removed only by the difficult process of impeachment.A most difficult problem was that of harmonizing federal and state authority. How could the federal government compel individuals within the states to obey the provi sions of a treaty? How could a state legislature be pre vented from taking action in conffict with the constitutional authority of the United States? The Virginia plan pro posed two methods of dealing with this problem. One method, suggested by the King's disaUowance of colonial legislation, was to give Congress a veto on state laws. Madison advocated this method and was much disappointed when it was rejected. The other method, proposed in both the Virginia and New Jersey plans, was to give Congress power to use force against a deUnquent state. Unfortunately this plan implied a Union based upon states rather than upon individuals and seemed more likely to provoke an- THE "SUPREME LAW" 595 tagonism than to lessen it. On July 16, when the congres sional veto was being discussed, it was suggested that a better way would be to have unconstitutional legislation dealt with by the judges, as had already been done in some of the state courts. Thereupon the convention rejected the veto plan and, on the motion of Luther Martin, declared that the laws and treaties of the United States, made in accordance with the Constitution, should be the "supreme law" of the states, whose judges should be bound by them, Enforcement any state law to the contrary notwithstanding. Out ^dary. of this resolution there developed a far more sweeping statement, quite beyond Martin's intention but finaUy embodied in Article VI of the Constitution, by which the Constitution itself, together with laws and treaties made in accordance with it, was made "the supreme law of the land," binding on the judges not only as against state laws but against state constitutions as weU. It was also agreed that in such cases federal courts should have original as weU as appellate jurisdiction. The federal judiciary was expected to exercise a simUar Unconstitu- check upon Congress. This is evident from the discussion legislation by about the desirabUity of making federal judges members Congress. of the councU of revision. In opposition to that plan it was argued that the judges could more properly act on legislation in their strictly judicial capacity, as individual cases came before them. State courts had already declared state laws unconstitutional and federal judges could do the same thing for acts of Congress which did not conform to the "supreme law." Not all the members of the Conven tion accepted this view, but the weight of evidence seems to indicate that the framers of the Constitution meant the judges not only to interpret the statute law but also to determine whether it was in harmony with the higher law embodied in the Constitution. So far as the framework of the new government was 596 THE GREAT CONVENTION Relation of concerned, the convention had departed radicaUy from the tion tTthe1" Articles of Confederation. Though almost everything in Articles of ft was based on previous experience in the British govern- tion. ment, in colonial practice, or in the state constitutions, the total effect was distinctly original. In sharp contrast to the old Congress, the new government was to stand squarely on its own feet, depending as Uttle as possible on the state governments, and acting everywhere, through its own agents, upon the individual citizen. In all these matters, the Articles of Confederation were of little use except by way of warning. When, however, the convention came to the task of dividing the field of government between federal and state authorities, the existing powers of Congress were the natural starting point. In foreign affairs the nomi nal jurisdiction of the old Congress had been fairly com plete; what was mainly needed now was to provide more effective means of exercising such authority. To a greater or less extent this principle applies also to such matters as the war power, the postal service, the regulation of weights and measures, and the coinage system, though as regards this last item the Constitution took a long step forward by forbidding the states to issue any kind of money — gold, sUver, or paper. The most important additions to the powers of Congress were those relating to finance and commerce. In these matters the state legislatures were subordinated to an extent to which they had never been accustomed before, even in colonial times. After stubbornly denying the taxing power to Par Uament and to their own existing Congress, the states were now asked to give the new federal legislature general author ity to "lay and coUect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises"; subject, of course, to a few restrictions, which, though not unimportant in themselves, were relatively so in comparison with the powers given. WhUe the federal government got these new sources of revenue, the states had to give up the The taxing power. REGULATION OF COMMERCE 597 right, always enjoyed before, of levying customs duties. Radical, also, was the change in the matter of commerce. Regulation The control of foreign trade exercised by the imperial Par- of commerce- Uament had, for the most part, been withheld from the Confederation Congress; but it was now made the exclusive business of the federal government. In the field of inter state commerce, the states lost even the limited freedom of colonial days. This exclusive control of interstate commerce by Congress is even more important from an economic than from a constitutional point of view; for it estabUshed the principle of free trade within a wider area than that of western Europe. In this case, however, the victory was not easily won; for a time the task of reconcUing the opposing interests seemed almost hopeless. In general, the commercial states of the Northeast wished Commercial to give Congress Uberal powers for the encouragement of ^^ff1" their special interests. In particular, they wished to pro- interests ,.,.., .. .. Sectionalism. tect then shippmg from foreign competition, somewhat as it had been protected under the EngUsh Navigation Acts. In opposition to this view, the staple-export states of the South feared that sectional legislation might sacrifice the interests of the South and West to those of the Northeast. The attitude of Jay and his supporters on the Mississippi question had intensified this sectional feeling among the southern members, and they proposed to protect themselves by requiring a two-thirds majority to pass a navigation act. About one kind of commerce the southerners could not The slave agree among themselves. Since the outbreak of the Rev- sectional olution, the movement for the suppression of the foreign ^esenta" slave trade had made considerable progress through the action of individual states, even in the South. In the con vention, this traffic was vigorously denounced by Mason of Virginia and Martin of Maryland; but the planters of South Carolina and Georgia beUeved that continued impor tation of negroes was stiff desirable and they threatened to 598 THE GREAT CONVENTION reject the Constitution unless the slave trade were secured against congressional interference. This question was com pUcated by that of sectional representation. If negro popu lation was to be counted in determining the representation of a state in Congress, northern members objected to the indefinite expansion of that element through fresh importa- The com- tions. Both issues were finaUy settled by compromise. For promises. purposes of apportionment, negroes were to count only to the extent of three fifths of their total number. On the question of the slave trade the planters of South CaroUna and Georgia struck a bargain with the northern merchants. Congress was authorized to regulate commerce by a simple majority vote; but the planting interests were protected by a clause prohibiting duties on exports, and the special demands of the lower South were partly met by forbidding Congress to aboUsh the slave trade before the year eighteen hundred and eight. The Con-- There was some genuine antislavery feeling in the con stitution and . . °. J ° . slavery. vention; but it was impossible to estabUsh the Umon on any other condition than that of recognizing slavery as a matter to be dealt with by the individual states. Mean time, the use of the word slave was carefully avoided. Fugi tive slaves were referred to only as "persons held to service or labor"; the slave trade was covered by a phrase about the "migration of such persons" as the states might wish to admit; representation was to be based on free whites and three fifths of aU "other persons." SectionaUsm Scarcely less significant than the feeling between the and West. North and the South was another kind of sectionalism be tween East and West. The difference of opinion on the Mississippi question was mentioned in this connection also, and some members, southern as weU as northern, feared that the future western states might come to have too much power. A North Carolina member, for instance, was opposed to paying the salaries of congressmen from the EAST AND WEST 599 federal treasury, for fear that the old states might some day have to support representatives from the supposedly poorer states of the West, who would be employed in "thwarting" the "measures and interests" of the East. Just as indi vidual colonies and states had kept down the representation of their western counties, so it was proposed to base federal representation, partly at least, on property, in order that the western states might not be too strong in Congress. Gouverneur Morris argued that the "back members" in the state legislatures were always against the "best measures. " "If the western people, " he said, " get the power into their hands, they wiU ruin the Atlantic interests." Fortunately the West also had able champions. WUson Champions declared that a narrow attitude toward westward expansion ° * e est" would be disastrous to the United States, as it had been to the British Empire. Madison also urged the duty of treating the prospective western states as equals in the Union. This broader view prevaUed and no restrictions were imposed on the representation of the West. The advocates of restric tion did, however, succeed so far as to strike out of the para graph on the admission of new states, the words "on the same terms with the original states. " This was apparently done in order that Congress might be free to impose con ditions. Morris explained that he did not mean to dis courage the growth of the western country, but was un- wiffing to "throw the power into their hands." ActuaUy, however, no conditions of the particular kind then suggested have ever been imposed. This discussion about the West was closely connected Protection with the idea of protecting the property-holding class ° prope y' against radical legislation. No property qualifications were specfficaUy required either of officers or of voters; but since the suffrage for federal elections in any particular state was to be that prescribed for elections to the lower house of the state legislature, property qualifications were 600 THE GREAT CONVENTION practicaUy required for congressmen also, at least for the time being. The conservative business point of view is also Ulustrated by the clauses of the Constitution which prohibit the states from impairing the obligation of con tracts, issuing paper money, or making anything except gold and sUver a legal tender. There was Uttle opposition to these clauses in the convention, and they undoubtedly helped to make the Constitution attractive to conservative people. ™ rjetaU63 ^ter aSreemg on principles, there was stUl the slow and and on Style, difficult process of working up detaUs; much of this work was left to the Committee of DetaU and the Committee of Style. The former committee foUowed in the main the principles of the amended Virginia plan but it also used other plans, including that of New Jersey and one prepared by Charles Pinckney. The Articles of Confederation and some of the state constitutions were also drawn upon. After the report of the Committee of DetaU had been thoroughly debated, the actual phrasing of the Constitution was intrusted to the Committee of Style, consisting of five of the ablest delegates. Since the choice of particular words and phrases was often much more than a mere matter of literary taste, it is worth noting that four of the five members of this committee — HamUton, Madison, King, and Gouverneur Morris, the chairman — had taken the national side in the convention debates. The finished When the Committee of Style finally reported to the convention, on September T2, the members were evidently impatient of further debate. On September 15 the Con stitution was agreed to by aU the states then present and two days later the engrossed copy was signed by one or more members from each of them. A few dissatisfied dele gates had previously left the convention, and of those who remained three refused to sign. In framing the Constitution, the members of the con- REVOLUTIONARY PROCEDURE 6oi vention realized that they were simply draftsmen and that The plan of then work would go for nothing unless ratified by the states. Re^otation- Much, however, depended on the method of ratification, ary features. and in this matter the convention took a revolutionary step. Since the new Constitution was technicaUy an amend ment or a series of amendments to the Articles of Confed eration, it should have been first acted upon by Congress and then ratified by the unanimous vote of the thirteen states. It was doubtful, however, whether such unanimous consent could be secured and the convention therefore de termined that if nine states ratified the Constitution it should go into effect between those states, without waiting for the others. Scarcely less revolutionary was the decision to have the states act not through their legislatures but through conventions chosen by the people for that specific purpose. With this understanding, then, the Constitution was sent to Congress, which, with little enthusiasm and no indorsement, favorable or otherwise, submitted it to the states. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES Channing, United Stales, III, 469-481, 494-517. McLaughlin, Accounts Confederation and Constitution, chs. XI-XVI. Farrand, M. of the .. . . ' convention. Making of the Constitution and his Fathers of the Constitution. Comprehensive older accounts in Bancroft, United Slates, VI (author's last revision), and Curtis, G. T., History of the Consti tution (or Constitutional History of the United States, I). I Beard, C. A., Economic Interpretation of the Constitution, chs. Economic I-VII. Compare Merriam, American Political Theories, ch. Ill, "on^16 a" and McLaughUn, Steps in the Development of American Democracy, ch. III. Meigs, W. M., Growth of the Constitution in the Federal Con- Special vention (traces the development of particular clauses). Beard, C. toplcs- A., The Supreme Court and the Constitution, ch. II. Biographies of Madison by Hunt, EUsworth by W. G. Brown, Sherman by 602 THE GREAT CONVENTION L. H. Boutell, Mason by K. M. Rowland, bring out different views. Sources. Farrand, M., Records of the Federal Convention (comprehensive coUection of sources for the convention, including its journal, Madison's notes, and fragmentary notes of other members). Madison's notes also in EUiott's . Debates, V; Documentary History of the Constitution (U. S. State Department pubUcation); and in his Writings (this part of Hunt's edition also pubUshed separately). Selections from Madison's notes, e.g., from the debates on repre sentation, June, 1787, make excellent supplementary reading. See also McLaughUn and others, Source Problems, Problem III. CHAPTER XXVIII THE NEW UNION The friends of the Constitution began their fight for The Federal ratification with one great advantage. Several of their ^yits leaders, having sat in the convention, had become thoroughly opponents. famUiar with most of the questions which were likely to be discussed. There were also many other men who had taken an active part in the movement for a stronger Union; they knew what they wanted and felt that the new Con stitution, though not perfect, was a long step in the right direction. So in most of the states this "Federal" party was weU organized and equipped for the struggle. On the "Anti-Federahst" side, organization and leadership were less effective. A few dissatisfied members of the con vention, Uke Martin of Maryland and Mason of Virginia, were ready to carry the fight into the states, and they could count on the help of some veteran revolutionists like Patrick Henry; Samuel Adams also, though finaUy won over to the Federal cause, was dubious at first. On the whole, however, the Anti-Federalist leaders were comparatively obscure and second-rate men. Furthermore, the working up of a political campaign on short notice was slower and more difficult in the Anti-Federahst areas of the interior than in the more compact communities of the seaboard, which generaUy took the Federal side. The advantage of an early start was soon apparent. Early Within less than four months after the close of the Federal Convention, the Constitution was ratified by five states, a majority of the nine required to put the system into effect. Four of these five belonged to the "smaU-state" group in 603 604 THE NEW UNION Pennsylvania. The fight in the legislature. Philadelphiaand the back country. the convention; but their delegates had been satisfied with the compromise on representation and had gone home to work for ratification. In Delaware, New Jersey, and Georgia, the state conventions voted unanimously for ratification, and in Connecticut the majority was more than three to one. In Pennsylvania, the first large state to ratify, there was more of a fight, and in some respects the situation there was fairly typical of the country at large. The Federal leaders in Pennsylvania worked hard for an early decision, and within two weeks after the Federal Convention adjourned, a motion was made in the legis lature for calling a state convention. The legislature was about to adjourn and the Anti-FederaUsts made desperate attempts to break the quorum; but local opinion in PhUa delphia was strongly against them and absentee members were forcibly brought back to their seats. Having secured a quorum, the Federal leaders put through their motion; about a month was aUowed before the election of delegates and the convention was to assemble two weeks later. This was certainly moving fast, so much so as to justify the protests of the opposition. When the elections were held, early in November, the eastern section, and especially PhUadelphia with its large business interests, chose Federal delegates by a decided majority. In the interior counties, the current ran in the opposite direction. These back-country farmers, especially the Scotch-Irish Presbyterians, had waged a long fight against the conservatives of the seaboard; in 1776 they had put Pennsylvania on the side of independence and had forced through a comparatively democratic state consti tution. The new federal system now looked to them like an attempt of the "moneyed interests" in PhUadelphia to weaken their cherished state government by transferring much of its power to a central authority, less responsive to the wUl of the people. RATIFICATION BY PENNSYLVANIA 605 The convention which met in PhUadelphia in Novem- The Penn- ber, 1787, ffiustrated very weU the various elements of which f^fon C°°' the state was composed. The Scotch-Irish delegates were numerous and furnished the chief opponents of ratification. The Germans were also strongly represented, and one of their number, Frederick Muhlenberg, was elected president. Opposition On the Federal side the outstanding figure was James WUson, leaders- but he was ably supported by Chief -Justice McKean. The recognized leaders of the opposition were WiUiam Findley, John Smffie, and Robert WhitehiU; the first two born in the north of Ireland and the third of Scotch-Irish parentage. They were evidently able men, and aU of them subsequently represented Pennsylvania in the new federal Congress; but none of them ever won a reaUy national reputation. The opponents of ratification argued that the framers The issues of the Constitution had exceeded their authority, organized efined' a consolidated rather than a truly federal government, and undertaken to secure its adoption by a method not author ized in the Articles of Confederation. WUson answered with a frankly nationalistic argument. There was no ques tion, he said, of transferring sovereignty from the states to the federal government; for real sovereignty belonged only to the people, who, by ratifying this Constitution, would simply transfer certain powers and duties from one of their agents to another. The Anti-Federalists objected to the taxing power, which they thought might be used to cripple the state governments, and complained that there was no bffi of rights to protect personal Uberty, more par ticularly freedom of speech and of the press. The suspicious attitude of the rural population toward the "moneyed in terests" was quite evident and the Senate was considered especiaUy dangerous from this point of view. On the other hand, WUson and his associates argued that the new system was not less democratic than the state governments and that a federal biU of rights was unnecessary because the 6o6 THE NEW UNION Ratification. The fight in Massa chusetts. The opposition. Economic factors. new government was Umited to certain enumerated powers. WhUe the Anti-FederaUsts urged the necessity of distrusting authority, the advocates of ratification pleaded for govern mental efficiency. The new government, they said, would protect American commerce, provide for national defense against enemies abroad or at home, and prevent vicious legislation, particularly in the matter of paper money. In short, the adoption of the Constitution would "make us a nation. " i Notwithstanding the strenuous efforts made on both sides, the outcome of the Pennsylvania convention was practicaUy certain from the beginning. Under the existing apportionment the Anti-FederaUst voters were not fairly represented; on test questions they were outnumbered two to one, and the final vote was forty-six to twenty-three in favor of ratification. This result undoubtedly encour aged the friends of the Constitution in other states, but the methods used by the victorious party were sharply criticized. It was even charged with obstructing the circulation of Anti-FederaUst papers. i The second of the larger states to act was Massachusetts. AU but one of the delegates from this state to the Federal Convention came back to fight for ratification, and they had with them most of the merchants and professional men, especiaUy in the coast towns and in the Connecticut vaUey. In the state convention, they were superior to their opponents in parUamentary tactics and debate; but the numerical advantage was probably at first on the other side. The opponents of the Constitution were especiaUy strong in the frontier district of Maine and in the interior counties of Massachusetts, where the insurgents of 1786 and their sympathizers were most numerous. These people took little interest in foreign commerce and were much afraid of the supposed machinations of the creditor class. Indeed, the fact that lawyers and moneyed men favored the Con- RATIFICATION BY MASSACHUSETTS 607 qV-V stitution seemed to some of these rural voters a good reason for voting against it. What counted most heavUy against the Constitution, Superiority here as in Pennsylvania, was the feeling of many plain feadership people that to go into the new Union would be to move, to some extent at least, away from democratic control of their own affairs. The only man of much prominence who sided definitely with the opposition was Elbridge Gerry, a member of the Federal Convention, who, curiously enough, was himself a large holder of government securities and a prosperous merchant; but for some time it seemed possible that Hancock and Samuel Adams might throw the great weight of their revolutionary prestige on the same side. In the end, however, both these men were won over by the skffi- ful tactics of the Federal leaders, who flattered Hancock by helping to make him president of the convention. Realizing that an early vote would probably go against them, the friends of the Constitution insisted on having it first thoroughly dis cussed, paragraph by paragraph. FinaUy, they also per- close vote suaded some doubtful members, including Adams, to vote ^nratifica" for unconditional ratification, with the understanding that certain amendments would be recommended. Even with this clever management, the victory was won only by the narrow margin of 19 in a total vote of 355. Probably a direct vote of the people would have gone against the Constitution. In the spring of 1788 two more southern states ratified Maryland the Constitution. In Maryland, Luther Martin tried hard c^ohna!11 to convince his feUow citizens that the Constitution would lead straight towards centralized, and perhaps even mo narchical, government; but the prevaUing sentiment was decidedly agamst him. In South Carolma, the opposition was more serious. The merchants and planters of the seaboard were fairly content with the concessions which had been made to them; but there was strong opposition 608 THE NEW UNION in the back country, and nearly a third of the delegates voted New against ratification. Eight states had now ratified, and in Strath6' June New Hampshire came in by a close vote to fiU out state. the minimum requirement of nine states; but three of the five largest stffi wavered. New York. In New York, the enemies of the Constitution were better organized than in Massachusetts. At then head was George Clinton, the popular war governor and the manager of a strong poUtical "machine." Back of him were a majority of the Hudson River landowners, who were jealous of the city merchants and especiaUy anxious to save the revenue from import duties, which the new Constitution would take from them. On the same side were Yates and Lansing, HamUton's state-rights coUeagues at the PhUadelphia convention, with other able poUticians and lawyers. The stronghold of the Federal party was the city of New York, whose business and professional men, Uke the corresponding class elsewhere, wanted a strong gov ernment, capable of regulating and protecting commerce. They were ably led by Jay and HamUton, but at first were evidently in a minority. Their final victory by the narrow margin of three votes was due partly to skillful management and partly to the fact that the Clinton party hesitated to hold out against the nine states which had already adopted the Constitution. This ratification was unconditional; but some votes were secured by agreeing to recommend a new convention to revise the Constitution. The contest WhUe the debate was going on in New York an even m irgnua. more important contest was taking place in Virginia. Both sides had great names to conjure with. On the Federal side Washington was of course the outstanding figure; but with him were Madison and a young lawyer named John MarshaU, who was destined to become famous as Chief Jus tice of the United States. After some wavering, Governor Randolph also decided to support the Constitution, and RATIFICATION BY VIRGINIA 609 Jefferson from his diplomatic post at Paris agreed that it was safer to accept the new plan with aU its faults than to reject it. Meantime the opposition had on its side three conspicuous leaders of the Revolution: Richard Henry Lee, who in the Continental Congress had moved the memorable resolution in favor of independence, confederation, and foreign affiances; George Mason, chief author of the Vir ginia Declaration of Rights; and Patrick Henry. This was a hard combination to beat, and it came near winning. Many of the arguments presented by the opposition Henry's were Uke those in other states. Henry objected to such ^s^ents. phrases as, "We the people, of the United States," "ordain and estabUsh this constitution," which seemed to transfer sovereignty from the states to the Union and establish a "consohdated," or national, government. The President might easffy become a King and Congress might also abuse its power unless held in by a bffi of rights. In aU this there was comparatively Uttle new matter. The great difficulty in Virginia was the fear that in the regulation of commerce Congress might sacrifice the agricultural interests of the South in order to promote northern manufactures and shipping. Jay's Mississippi proposal was again brought up in this connection. On such issues Henry was able to carry with him the great majority of his neighbors in the piedmont district. On the other hand, Washington and Madison were sup- Sectional ported by a majority of the tidewater planters and merchants, the^contest. whose experience was such as to emphasize the need of strong government. The Virginia system of representation gave the planters an unfair advantage; but even so the Constitution would probably have been beaten if many of the Scotch-Irish and Germans in the Great VaUey had not broken away from their neighbors in the piedmont and voted with the Federal party. These vaUey people were probably influenced partly by friendliness toward Madison, 610 THE NEW UNION who had successfuUy defended their dissenting sects against Victory the estabUshed church. When the convention finaUy voted Constitution, for ratification by a narrow majority, that result was said to have been made possible by the action of certain delegates who acted against the known wishes of their constituents. North Caro- The action of New York and Virginia practicaUy ended Rhode the fight. Neither of the two states which stUl held out bland' was important enough to cause much anxiety. In North CaroUna, opposition elements, much Uke those in Virginia, prevented ratffication untU the foUowing year. As for Rhode Island, then discredited by the excesses of the paper- money party, it was only a question of time when she would be forced to come in. For the present, however, both these States lost the distinction of being original members of the new union, which was formed by the revolutionary secession of eleven states from the old Confederation. The new , In September the Confederation Congress recognized organ^dby this revolution as an accomphshed fact by asking the states its friends. to choose presidential electors and members of the new Congress. In some states the opponents of the Constitution made serious efforts to send to Congress men of their own way of thinking. OccasionaUy they were successful, as in the election of the first two senators from Virginia; Madison had to content himself with a seat in the lower house. In most cases, however, men of Federal sympathies were elected. The unanimous vote of the presidential electors for Washington cannot of course be credited to any particular party; but he was the most influential leader of the Federal group. In short, the great experiment was to be conducted by men who wished it to succeed. The first ten On one important point the critics of the Constitution amen ents. wgre successfm jn one state after another they had de manded a federal bffi of rights, and in some cases the rati fying conventions had recommended amendments for this purpose. There was even some talk of a second convention, INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION 6ll which might have reopened many trying questions. FinaUy the moderates on both sides combined to secure action by the first Congress under the new Constitution, recommend ing certain amendments, of which ten were ratified. These first ten amendments constituted substantiaUy a bffi of rights of the kind demanded by the moderate Anti-FederaUsts. Whether necessary or not, these formal declarations appealed to most men at that time as desirable guarantees against federal interference with religious Uberty, freedom of the press, trial by jury, and other cherished rights. Many people also felt safer when the tenth amendment set down in black and white the principle that aU rights not dele gated to the federal government or prohibited to the states were reserved to the states or to the people. One advantage of the controversy over ratification was The that, along with a great mass of unimportant speeches and pamphlets, it left behind a few reaUy important essays on the science and art of government. Of these the most famous is The Federalist, a series of newspaper articles which appeared over the signature of PubUus. A con siderable majority of these were written by HamUton; but several important ones were contributed by Madison, and a few by John Jay. It is hard to say how far The Federalist made votes for the Constitution; but it is per manently valuable because it Ulustrates the poUtical phi losophy of the day and shows how the Constitution was interpreted by some of the men most responsible for its adoption. Very suggestive also are the principal publica tions on the opposite side. Luther Martin's essay caUed Genuine Information, which was intended primarUy for the Anti-^ enhghtenment of his neighbors in Maryland, brings out publications. many objections to the Constitution and helps to show why it was unsatisfactory to a large part, perhaps a majority, of the American people. In Pennsylvania, the Centinel essays tried to do for the Anti-FederaUsts what 6l2 THE NEW UNION Contempo rary inter pretation of Constitution. The Consti tution in relation to democraticideals. HamUton and Madison did for the friends of the Con stitution. A study of this contemporary Uterature shows that men were akeady divided, somewhat as they were in the next century, about the nature of the government which was being established. Its opponents generaUy claimed that it was a centralized, or centralizing, system; a dangerous departure from the sacred principle of state sovereignty; a national, rather than a truly federal, government. Some friends of the Constitution, like WUson for instance, frankly declared that the Constitution was intended to create a national government and that state sovereignty was an idle phrase. More cautious members of that party tried to disarm criticism by showing that the change in principle from the Articles of Confederation was less revolutionary than it seemed. In general, such men seemed to regard sovereignty as divided between the states and the Union. They undoubtedly spoke of the federal Constitution as a "compact"; but they often used the same word in speaking of the state constitutions. When, in one of his best-known Federalist essays, Madison described the proposed new government as neither whoUy federal nor whoUy national, but a composite of both principles, he was of course emphasizing the element of compromise in the system; but his state ments also suggest that many of the people who adopted the Constitution did not have precise notions about the meaning of such words as nationaUty and state sovereignty. It has therefore always been possible for extreme advocates of nationaUsm on one side, or of states rights on the other, to find material for their arguments in the writings of the founders. Careful study of contemporary Uterature also shows that, though the radical democracy of the time was gen eraUy against the Constitution, there was no clean-cut issue of this kind between the friends and enemies of the AMERICAN ACHIEVEMENTS 613 Constitution. Speeches on both sides show much more emphasis on property rights than would now be regarded as democratic, as weU as a keen interest in devices for curbing popular majorities. Some of Luther Martin's articles indi cate real democratic feeling and so do those of some other less conspicuous Anti-FederaUsts; but it would be hard to prove that such opponents of the Constitution as George Mason, Richard Henry Lee, or Elbridge Gerry, were reaUy more democratic than James Madison or James WUson. It was Mason who said that the people could no more choose a President intelligently than a bhnd man could choose colors. It was Gerry, one of the chief opponents of the Constitution in Massachusetts, who declared that the evUs of the time came "from the excess of democracy" and added in the same speech that though he was stiU a repubUcan he "had been taught by experience the danger of the levil- ling spirit. " In short, the evolution of American democracy, as weU as of American nationality, was incomplete. When aU is said, however, the inauguration of Wash- American ington as the first President of the United States does indeed mentsT" mark the end of a great historic process, which began in l6°7-i7So. 1607 with the landing of the first English settlers at James town. The struggling and dependent colonies of a Euro pean nation had at last grown into self-reUant commonwealths capable of winning their independence from the mother coun try, of reorganizing their institutions on repubUcan prin ciples, and finaUy of estabUshing a federal system different from, and in advance of, any previous experiment of that kind. Whether the American people of 1789 were akeady a nation or not, whether their Union was a national gov ernment or a federation of sovereign states, it is quite certain that they had established the foundations upon which American nationality has been buUt. They had also determined to a large extent the political framework within which a great nation is stUl able to live and work. 614 THE NEW UNION Generalaccounts. Contemporary argu ments. Special topics. Penn sylvania.Massachusetts. New York. Virginia. RhodeIsland. BD3LIOGRAPHICAL NOTES Channing, United States, III, 515-524. Fiske, Critical Period, ch. VII. McLaughUn, Confederation and Constitution, chs. XVII- XVIII. McMaster, People of the United States, I, 454-502. EUiott, J., Debates, II-IV (state conventions, etc.). Farrand, Records of the Federal Convention, III. The Federalist (editions by H. B. Dawson, E. G. Bourne, W. C. Ford, and others; selec tions by W. B. Munro). Representative HamUtonian essays are nos. 15, 16, 21-23, 27, 70; see also 10 and 39 (Ford edition, 38 in some others; The Constitution Strictly Republican), by Madi son. Writings of Washington, Hamilton, Madison. For opposi tion arguments see Centinel essays in McMaster and Stone, Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution, and Luther Martin's Genuine Information in Farrand, Records, III, 172-232. Beard, Economic Interpretation of the Constitution, chs. VIII-XI; also his Economic Interpretation of J effersonian Democracy, ch. Ill, and his Supreme Court and the Constitution, chs. III-V. Libby, O. G., Geographical Distribution of the Vote of the Thirteen States on the Federal Constitution. McLaughlin, A. C, The Courts, the Constitution and Parties, 189-242. McMaster, J. B., and Stone, F. D., Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution (with sources). Harding, S. B., Ratification of the Constitution in Massachu setts. Morse, A. E., Federalist Party in Massachusetts, chs. I-IV. Biographies of HamUton by Morse, Oliver, and HamUton. Ambler, C. H., Sectionalism in Virginia, 53-60. Beveridge, A. J., John Marshall, I, chs. IX-XII. Henry, Patrick Henry, II, especiaUy chs. XXXVI, XXXVIII. Hunt, Madison, chs. XV- XVH. Rowland, George Mason, II, chs. V-VTI. Tyler, Patrick Henry, chs. XVIII, XIX. Bates, F. G., Rhode Island and the Union, especiaUy ch. V. INDEX Abercrombie, General, in French and Indian War, 381,382. Acadia, French colony established, 25, 212; under Cromwell, 133 ; character, 212; taken by English (1690) and recovered, 219; British attack, and conquest, 222, 223; cession by France to Great Britain, 224; French influence over Acadians, 364, 367; dispute as to extent, 367; removal of Acadians, 373. Act for the Impartial Administration of Justice, 429. Act of Settlement, 194; protected judges, 232. Act of Union, 226. Acts of trade, 178, 182-184; protective principle, 184; problem of enforcement, 184; effect of Revolution of 1688, 205; readjusted by Gren ville, 402-403. Adams, John, influenced by European writers, 255; broad thinking, 393; counsel for British officer, 422; in first Continental Congress, visits churches in Philadelphia, 433; War Office, 445, 461 ; favors independence, 449; opinion of Paine's Common Sense, 450; resolution of May, I7?6, 452; moves for American independence, 453; committee on Declaration of Independence, 453; argues for independence, 454; comment on Declaration, 455; chairman of War Office, 461; influence on Massachusetts constitution, 463; secures loans from Dutch, 464; character and contribution to victory, 468; peace com missioner, 513; envoy to Holland, 514; atti tude as peace commissioner, 514; ignores in structions, 519; negotiates for fisheries, 520; negotiates concerning private debts, 521; advice by Price, 527; belief in class distinctions, 535; view on apportionment, 549; on veto power, 550; drafts clause on public education in Massachusetts constitution, 555; on nature of Confederation, 563; commissioner to negotiate commercial treaties, 570; tries to secure com mercial concessions from England, 570; minis ter to Great Britain, 570, 571, 572; influence on constitutional convention, 586; cited, 340, 433- 'Adams, Samuel, character and political theories, 420; forces transfer of soldiers, 422; opposes Hutchinson, 423, 424; Committees of Corre spondence, 425; opposes tea tax, 426; in first Continental Congress, proposes Episcopal chap lain, 433; state politics, 566; favors federal Constitution, 607. Addison, Spectator essays, influence on America, 254- Admiralty, courts of, 241; jurisdiction, 403. "Adventurers," in Maryland, 71. Agriculture, in England, 3-5; of Indians, 50; in New England, 101, 102; in middle colonies, 292; in the South, 320, 324. Aix-la-Chapelle, treaty, 365. Albany, originally Fort Orange, 146, 157; fur trade, 146, 161; government, 158; opposes Leisler, 197; Dutch language, 284, 340. Albany Congress of 1754, 376. Albany Plan, 376; unacceptable to colonies, 377, 557- Albemarle, Duke of, friend of Charles II, 134; Carolina proprietor, 136. Albemarle settlements, 138-139. Aldermen, in England, 9. Alexander, Sir William, colonizer, 42. Algonquian Indians, political organization, 50. Allegheny River, Celoron's journey, 369. Allen, Ethan, takes Ticonderoga and Crown Point, 446. Amboina massacre, 125. Amendments, to Articles of Confederation, de feated, 568, 569, 571, 584; to Constitution, first ten, 610-61 1. American nationality, English and other contri butions, 1, 130, 131, 532, 533; in 1750, 338- 355; elements of unity, 340; English influences, 340-347; new American ideas, 347-355; re ligious tendency, 351-354; effect of westward expansion, 354; the making of an American, 354~355; feeling about the empire, 392-393; English predominate, 532, 533; common body of political doctrine, 555; evolution incomplete, 613; foundations established, 613. Americanizing influences, 347-348. Amherst, Jeffrey, takes Louisburg, 381, 382; expedition against Quebec, 383, 384; takes Montreal, 384. Amory, Thomas, Boston merchant, career, 263. Anarchy, threatened during Revolution, 463. Andre, Major, execution, 501. Andros, Edmund, character, 158, 189; governor of New York, 158, 160; attempted control of New Jersey, 162; governor of New England, 189-192; relations with Indians, 190; taxation, 191; disregard of Puritan traditions, 192; de posed, 195. Anglican Church, n; in Virginia, 56, 61, 77, 33o, 331. 552; high church party, 96; in North Carolina, 137, 250; in South Carolina, 142, 248, 250, 332; in New York, rsg, 248, 303, 304; in Pennsylvania, 171, 175. 304; in New England, 192, 248, 250, 276; in Ireland, 227; position in the colonies, 248-250; bishops pro posed for America, 249, 420; in Philadelphia and Burlington, 304; schools in middle colonies, 306; in Maryland, 332; in Thirteen Colonies, conservatism, 353; in United States, 533, 553* Anglo-Spanish War of 1739, 362. Annapolis (Md.), founded, 72; capital Mary land, 323; Confederation Congress at, 566, 567. Annapolis Convention, 585. Anne, Queen, 220; reduction of power, 228; death, 249- XIV INDEX Anson, Captain, voyage of, 362. Anti-Federalist party, 603; in Pennsylvania, 604-606; in Massachusetts, 606; in New York, 608; in Virginia, 609; leaders elected to First Congress, 610; publications opposing the Constitution, 611; democratic feeling, 613. Antinomians, in Massachusetts, 114. Antislavery movement, after the Revolution, 554. Apportionment, in states, problems of, 549- Aquidneck, settled, 117- Aranda. Count, war policy, 488; negotiation with Franklin, 489; questions United States claim to West, 528. Architecture, colonial, 265; in New England, 265-266; in New York and Philadelphia, 294. Argall, Captain, attacks French colonies, 216. Aristocracy, in England, 9; hi Carolina, 137, 140; in New York, 160, 196, 297; in Great Britain, 228; in the South, 326; in Thirteen Colonies, 348; conditions after the revolution, 534- Arizona, Coronado in, 24. Arkansas, De Soto in, 23. Arlington, Lord, Virginia grant, 81. Armada, Spanish, 15, 30. "Armed Neutrality," in Revolutionary War, 504. Arminian teaching, in New England, 277- Army, beginnings at Cambridge, 442, 445; lack of discipline and equipment, 445; control by Congress, 445; suffers from weak_ adminis tration, 463; management, 465; mutinies, 465, 501; inexperience of American officers, 465; foreign officers, 466; political interference, 467; Conway Cabal, 485; in 1780, 501; disbanding, 567-568; officers threaten revolt, 568. Arnold, Benedict, Canadian expedition, 447; military ability, 466; on Lake Champlain, 475, 477» treason, 501; British officer in Virginia, 503, 507. "Articles of Compact," in Ordinance of 1787, 578. Articles of Confederation, adopted, 501; nation ality of signers, 533; framed: and adopted, 559; delayed by question of western lands, 560; compared with other federations, 560; pro visions, 560-563; citizenship and interstate comity, 562; deficiencies, 562, 563; proposed amendments, 568, 569, 571, 584; movement to revise, 584; relation to new Constitution, 596, 600. Ashley, Lord, Earl of Shaftesbury, friend of Charles II, 134; Carolina proprietor, 136; leadership, 140; interest in trade expansion, zSi. Asiento agreement, 316. Assembly, colonial, in Virginia, 57, 59, 60; in Maryland, 72; British and American points of view, 234, 343; freedom limited by royal instructions to governors, 238; control over gov ernor, in colonies generally, 241; conflict with governor in Massachusetts, 270-2 7 1 ; gains control in New York, 297-299; in Pennsylva nia, 290-300; in South Carolina, 326; follows traditions of the English House of Commons, 342-343; view of English lawyers, 343; New York assembly suspended by Parliament, 417. Assistants, or council, of Massachusetts, 103, 104, 105. Assizes, court of, New York, 158. "Association." See " Continental Association." Austria, in Seven Years' War, 374, 384. Austrian Netherlands, in War of the Austrian Succession, 363, 365. Austrian Succession, War of, 363-365. Autocracy, in New Netherland, 147; in New York, 157; in New France, 210. Avalon colony, 42. Ayllon, in North Carolina, 23. Back country, physical m features, 4g; led by Bacon, 82; characteristics, 319, 323-325; prod ucts, 324; under-representation, 329-330; con flict with tidewater, 330; education, 335; Americanism, 354, 355; opposes Constitution (in Pennsylvania) 604, (in South Carolina) 608, (in Virginia) 609. Backwoodsmen, at Kings Mountain, 500. Bacon, Nathaniel, Virginia leader, 82; Rebellion, 82-84. Bacon. Sir Francis, in Virginia Company, 55. Bacon s Rebellion, 82-84. Balboa, explorer, 21. Baltimore, sphere of influence, 282; trade center of wheat farmers, 323; trade, 540; conditions aft°r the Revolution, 540. Baltimore, Lord, 67. See Calvert. Banking, regulated by Parliament, 237. Baptists, in Massachusetts, 114; in Boston, 273; in New England, 277, 552; in Thirteen Colonies, radicalism, 353; in Virginia, 533; in West, 545. Barbados, English colony, 40, 43; trade ordinance (1650), 75; in 1660, 130; emigrants from, 139, 141; constitutional controversies, 338. Barbary pirates, attack American ships, 536. Bartram, John, botanist, 308. Baxter, Richard, theological writings, 250. Bayard, Nicholas, aristocratic leader, 196. Beaubassin, fort established, 367. Beaumarchais, aids United States, 487. Beausfijour, fort established, 367; captured, 373. Bedford, Duke of, factional leader, 400; gains power in 1769, 422; faction in power during Revolution, 471. Belcher, governor of Massachusetts, 266, 272. Bellomont, governor of New York, cited, 296. Bemis Heights, American forces at, 483. Bennett, Richard, commissioner, 75. Bennington, battle, 483. Berkeley, Dean, philosopher, influence on America, 254; visits Rhode Island, 278. Berkeley, Lord, Carolina proprietor, 136; pro prietor New Jersey, 162, 164. Berkeley, Sir William, governor of Virginia, 60, 65; deposed (1652), 75; restored (r66o), 77; op poses Navigation Acts, 81; misgovernment, 81-82; war with Bacon, 83 ; recall, 83; charac ter, 84; Carolina proprietor, 136. Berkshire region, settled, 259. Bermudas, English colony, 40. Bernard, Governor, dissolves Massachusetts as sembly, 421. Bible, importance in colonial literature, 341. Bible Commonwealth, in Massachusetts, 103, 105; in New Haven, 122. Biblical Christianity, advocated by Puritans, 89. Bicameral system, in Virginia, 59; in Massa chusetts, 105; in state legislatures, 549. Bienville, Celoron de, claims Ohio valley, 369. Bigot, intendant of New France, 378. Bill of Rights, English, 194, 205. Bill of rights, in state constitutions, 550; in federal Constitution, 610-6x1. Biloxi, founded, 2x2, 221. INDEX XV Bishop of London, authority in colonies, 249; member of S. P. G., 250. Bishops of the Church of England, xo, 11; pro posed for America, 249, 420. Blainville, claims Ohio valley, 369. Blair, James, opposes Spotswood, 328; president of William and Mary CoUege, 333. Bland, John, opposes Navigation Acts, 81. Bland, Richard, denies authority of Parliament, 407; plan for territories, 576. Blathwayt, William, member Board of Trade, 231. Bloomsbury gang, defined, 400; gains power in 1769, 422. Board of Admiralty, British, 229, 232. Board of Trade, organization and functions, 230; members, 231; defects, 231; disallowance of colonial laws, 238; indicts chartered colonies, 268; reports against New York, 298. Board of War, appointed by Congress, 462. Body of Liberties, in Massachusetts, 106. Bolingbroke, Lord, political theories, 398. Bombay, acquired by Charles II, 134. Bonhomme Richard, victory, 467. Boone, Daniel, promotes colonization of Kentucky, 496; character, 544. Borough, in England, 9; American like English, 343. Boscawen, attempt against French fleet, 372; takes Louisburg, 381, 382. Boston, named, 100; under Andros, 192, 195; slave trade, 247; population, 259; shipping and trade, 261, 262; merchants, 263; houses and dress, 266; Newsletter, 278; mob attacks Hutchinson house, 409; headquarters of Townshend's customs service, 419; ' Massacre," 421; Tea Party, 427; Port Bill, 427; siege, 444-445; foreign trade, 537. Boston Massacre," 421. Boston Newsletter, 278. Boston Port Bill, 427, 431. Boston Tea Party, 427. Boundary controversies, colonial, 160-170, 295- 296; over forks of the Ohio, 369, 389; in United States, 529; dispute with Spain, 573. Bourbons, claim to Spain, 219, 220; in France and Spain, 361. Bowdoin, James, governor of Massachusetts, puts down the Shays rebellion, 581 ; fails of reelection, 582. Boycott, in opposition to Townshend Acts, 422; in 1774, 435. . Braddock, General, sent to America, 372; defeat, 373. Bradford, William, governor of Plymouth, 95- Bradford, William, printer, 295. Bradstreet, Lieutenant-Colonel, takes Fort Frontenac, 382, 392. Brandywine, battle, 481. Bray, Rev. Thomas, establishes libraries, 335- Brazil, becomes Portuguese, 21; French colony in, 25; visited by English, 26. Bread colonies, 247, 292. Breda, treaty of, 153- „ , Breton fishermen, visit Newfoundland, 24. Brewster, William, Separatist leader, education, Bristol, importance in 1606, 4; voyages to New foundland, 26. British creditors and American debtors, 237, 240, 247; after the Revolution, 521. British Empire, lack of an imperial constitution, 233; authority of Parliament, 234, 237; govern ment, 234-242; menaced by French alliance with United States, 491; as a quasi-federal system, 556. Brooklyn Heights, Washington's army at, 478; battle, 479. Bryn Mawr (Pa.), Welsh name, 175. Buckingham, Duke of, colonizer, 41. Bunker Hill, battle, 444. Bunyan, John, dissenter, 132. Burgesses of Virginia, 57, 50. Burgoyne, Sir John, lack of support in Saratoga campaign, 469; plan for 1777, 480; expedition, 481, 482-484; surrender, 484; effect of surrender on diplomacy, 486, 4go. Burke, Edmund, leader of "Old Whigs," 400; on tea tax, 423; opposes coercion of Massa chusetts, 428; conciliatory proposals, 437; opposition ineffective, 471; in ministry of 1782, 510; letter to Franklin (1782), 512; cited, 353, 423- Burlington (N. J.), settled, 164; trade, 294. Burnaby, English writer, cited, 294. Burnet, William, governor of Massachusetts, 270; governor of New York, opposes exports to Canada, 293; intellectual character, 307. Bute, Lord, ministry, 385, 399. Byles, Mather, Boston clergyman and poet, 254. ByUinge, proprietor West New Jersey, 164. Byrd, William, fur trade, 80; large estate, 320. Byrd, William, II, Royal Society, 253; large estate, 320; character and career, 328. Byrds, library, 328, 335. Cabinet, British, 229; in United States, 593. Cabot, John, explorer, 26. Cacique, title in Carolina, 137. Cadillac, founds Detroit, 221. California, visited by Drake, 30. Calvert, Cecilius, founds Maryland, 67, 69-72: religious problem, 70, 73, 74, 75) 352; loses and regains control, 76, 77. Calvert, Protestant, reclaims Maryland, 312. Calvert, Sir George, colonizer, 39, 42, 67; Avalon colony, 42; career, 67, 68. Calvin, John, influence on English, 11, 89; on Dutch, 18; doctrines, 89, 90. Calvinism, 89, 90; expounded by Jonathan Ed wards, 276. Calvinistic churches in middle colonies, 305- Calvinists, in Germany, 286; in Pennsylvania. 305. See Presbyterians, and Puritans. Cambridge (Eng.), University of, 13. Cambridge Agreement, 98. Cambridge (Mass.), army at, 442, 443, 445. Camden, battle, 494- Camden, Lord, denies power of Parliament to tax America, 41°- Canada, French colony, see New France; in French and Indian War, 375, 382-384; taken by British, 385; decision to hold, 385-386; ceded, 386, 429; new and old subjects, 388; Quebec Act of 1774, 429-430; religious toler ation, 429; no revolutionary spirit, 446. Canals, proposed by Chesapeake states, 541. Canton trade, American ships in, 537. Cape Breton Island, fortress of Louisburg, 363, Cape Fear River, colony on, 139. Cape Vincent, battle, 505. XVI INDEX Carleton, Sir Guy, defends Quebec, 447; in campaign of 1776, 475, 477J plan for 1777, 480. Carlisle, Earl of, colonizer, 39, 40. Carolina, patent to Heath, 41, 136; English colony, 136-142; charters, 136, 137, I85; boundaries, 137; government, 137, 140, 142; toleration, 137; aims of promoters, 138, 139; northern settlements, 138-139; Fundamental Constitutions, 140; South Carolina, 140-143; slow development before 1689, 311; complaints of the home government, 312; friction with proprietors, 313; proprietors give up, 3*4* See Carolinas, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Carolinas, fur trade, 215, 221; Anglican Church in, 250; population, 311; piracy, 312; Indian wars, 3x3. Carroll, Charles, of CarroUton, signed Declaration of Independence, 553. Carroll, John, envoy of Congress to Canada, 446; first Roman Catholic bishop, 553. Cartagena, sacked by Drake, 30. Carteret, governor of New Jersey, 162. Carteret, Sir George, Carolina proprietor, 136; proprietor New Jersey, 162; takes East New Jersey, 164; death, 164. Cartier, Jacques, explorer, 25. Castle William, British soldiers transferred to, 422. a Catharine II, armed neutrality, 504. Catholic Church, 10. See Roman Catholics. Cattle, in South Carolina, 141; in Carolinas, 321; in back country, 324. Cavaliers, in Virginia, 62, 75. Celoron de Bienville, claims Ohio valley, 369. Centinel essays, 611. Central America, Spanish in, 21, 22. Centurion, voyage of, 362. Chads Ford, battle, 481. Champlain, Lake, under British control, 475, 483- Champlain, Samuel de, founds Quebec, 207, 208. Charles I, conflict with Parliament, 6, 74, 97; grants colonies, 40, 41; charters Maryland, 67; execution, 74; church policy, 96; attempted control of American colonies, 109. Charles II, ascends throne, 77; grants in Virginia, 81; Connecticut charter, 123; policies and character, 131, 132, 133, 134; marriage, 134; patent for Newjt Netherland, 152; grant to Penn, 168-169; colonial policy, 181, 185; pension from Louis XIV, 216. Charleston (S. C), founded, 141; importance, 142; in Queen Anne's War, 221; in 1689, 311; center of provincial activity, 323; foodstuffs from back country, 325; intellectual center, 335; Library Society, 335; tea landed, 427; attacked in 1776, 447-448; taken by British, 493, 494; British base, 503; held by British after Yorktown, 508; conditions after the Revolution, 54X. Charleston Library Society, founded, 335. Charlottesville, British at, 507. Charter of Freedoms and Exemptions, in New Netherland, 145. Charter of Liberties and Privileges, in New York, 159- Charter of Privileges, in Pennsylvania, 172. i Chatham, Earl of, 415, see Pitt; out of power, 422; opinion of Continental Congress, 437; proposal to define colonial rights, 437-438. Chatham-Grafton ministry, 415. "Checks and balances," in state constitutions, 540-S51; in federal constitutional convention, 594- Cheraw, Greene s army at, 502. Cherokee country^ Virginians trade with, 80. Cherokees, raids in Revolution, 498. Chesapeake Bay, description, 48. Chesapeake colonies. See Virginia, and Maryland. Chesapeake country, physical features, 48. China, New England commerce with, 537. Church, established, in England, 10-12; in Virginia, 61, 248, 394-396 (Parson's Cause), 552; in Massachusetts, 107^ 552; in New Netherland, 149; in West Indies, 248; in New York, 248; in New England, 273; in South Carolina, 313; in South, 330; in Thirteen Col onies, 352-353- Church of England, 10-12. See Anglican Church. Church of Ireland, Anglican, 290. Churches, reorganized after Revolution, 553. See names of churches and sects. Cincinnati order, membership hereditary, 534. Circular Letter, Massachusetts, 421. Citizenship, national, under Articles of Con federation, 562. Civil War, in England, 7, 74; effect on coloni zation, 42; effect on Virginia, 62. Claiborne, William, opposes Lord Baltimore, 70; commissioner, 75, 76.^ Clarendon, Earl of, friend of _ Charles H, 134; CaroUna proprietor, 136; interest in trade expansion, 181; cited, 43. Clark, George Rogers, conquers the Illinois country, 499; opposition to Spain, 544. Class conflicts, after the Revolution, 580. Class distinctions, weakened in America, 348, 355. Classes, social, in England, 3-5, 9; in Virginia, 62; in New England, 266; American tendency to break down, 348, 355; in United States, 534-535; conflicts after the Revolution, 580. Clinton, General Sir Henry, attacks Charleston, 447; military ability, 473; British commander in chief, 492; battle of Monmouth, 492; takes Charleston, 493, 494; defends New York, 506; orders to Comwallis, 507; reenforcements to Comwallis, 508. Clinton, George, governor of New York,# appeals to rural voters, 539; opposes Constitution, 608. Clymer, George, delegate in constitutional con vention, 586. Coercive Acts of 1774, 427-430; effect of, 435; of 1775, 438. Coinage, regulated by Parliament, 237; debase ment of, 569. Colbert, Jean Baptiste, policies, 208. Colden, CadwaUader, physician and author, 307. Coligny, promotes colonies, 25. College of New Jersey, founded, 307. Colleges, Harvard, 109, 275, 277; Yale, 277; in Middle Colonies, 307; William and Mary, 333- Colleton, Sir John, Carolina proprietor, 136. Colonial agents, 242. Colonial Duty Act of 1673, 182, 185. Colonial government, development of self-govern ment, 43, 109, 195-200, 267-268, 556; govern ment in Virginia, 59, 60; in Massachusetts, X03-110; reorganization 1685-1688, 188-192; after 1688, 200-204; influence of Board of INDEX XVII Trade, 230, 231, 238; control by Parliament, 234-238; levies customs duties, 237, 557; control by Privy Council, 238-239; imperial agencies, 239-242 ; difficulties of overseas administration, 242; colonial agents, 242; English traditions, 342-347; new ideas, 348- 35°; powers, 556. See Assembly, CouncU, Governor, Representative government, and names of colonies. Colonial merchants. See Merchants. Colonial policy, new conception in Ordinance of 1787, 578. Colonial trade (in general), seventeenth century, 179-185; in English ships, 182; supervised by Board of Trade, 230; regulated by Parliament, 234-236;_ trade with England, 243; articles and conditions of commerce, 243-247; map, 244. Colonies. See names of colonies; also Colonial, Colonization, Thirteen Colonies. Colonists, rights of, 234, 344; proposed trial in England, 421. Colonization, motives of, 31-34, 42-43, 88, 92, 100, 133-136; public interest, 37; promoters of, 38, 87, 134; methods of promoting, 39, 135; English colonies in 1660, 130; new phases, 131; in Restoration era, 133-135; aims and methods, i3S- Columbus, Christopher, discoverer, 20. Commerce, English, 4, 32, 33, 132-135, 179-185, 243-247; West Indies, 40, 235, 247, 261, 264, 403, 4°5, 537, 539, 57o; of New England, 103, 138, 139, *5i» 183, 236, 246-247, 261-264, 536-538; in Restoration era, 132-135; of colonies in general, 170-185, 234, 243-247, see Colonial trade; of New York, 160, 247, 292; of Virginia, 180, 183, 246; French, under Colbert, 208; supervised by Board of Trade, 230; colonial commerce with England, 243-247; of Pennsylvania, 247; of middle colonies, 293; importance in British foreign policy, 359, 360; regulated by Continental Congress, 451; Ameri can, after the Revolution, 536-537, 539, 540; controlled by states, 562; under Confederation, 57o, 571; Congress given power to regulate, ^ 597.. Commissary-general, bad management, 465. Commissioners of Customs, British, 229, 232; new, 417. Committee of Detail, in constitutional convention, 600. Committee of Style, in constitutional convention, 600. Committee on Trade and Plantations, 185; opposes Massachusetts charter, 186-187; re placed by Board of Trade, 230. "Committees of Correspondence," organized, 425. Common lands, in England, 5; in Massachusetts, 102. Common law, in England, 7; in Massachusetts, 105; in the colonies, 344-346; American modifications, 350. Common Pleas, court in England, 7. Common Sense, by Thomas Paine, 450. Commons, House of, in 1606, 6; gains control of executive, 228; unrepresentative character, 228, 398, 47o. Commonwealth in England, 74- Communal system, in Virginia, 57; in Plymouth, Communication, slowness, 536. Community spirit, in New England, 102. Concession and Agreement, New Jersey, 163. "Conciliatory Proposition," of Lord North, 438. Concord, battle, 442. Confederates of 1861, use of economic resources, 464. Confederation, adopted, 501, 559; weakness, 501; state sovereignty under, 561; deficiencies, 562, 563; nature of, 563; problems of peace, 565; colomal policy, 574_579; secession of eleven states from, 610. Confederation Congress, equal representation, 559; functions, 560, 561, 562; control of foreign relations, 561; no power to tax, 562; nine-state rule, 562, 566; organization of executive de partments, 565; personnel, 565-566; irregular attendance, 566; ratifies treaty with Great Britain, 524, 567; migrations, 567; settling with the army, 567-568; finances, 568, 569; proposes amendments, 568, 569, 571; resolution denying right of states to interfere with treaties, 572; public land policy, 575; proposes con vention at Philadelphia, 585: submits Consti tution to states, 601; asks for elections under the Constitution, 610. Congregational organization of Separatists, 91. Congregational system, in Plymouth, 95; in Massachusetts, 107; in New England, 273-275. Congregationalists, in South Carolina, 142; in New Netherland, 149; relation with English Independents, 250; in Thirteen Colonies, radicalism, 353. See Puritans. Congress, Albany, 376. Congress, Confederation. See Confederation Congress. Congress, Continental. See Continental Congress. Congress, provincial. See Provincial congress. Congress, Stamp Act, 408. Congress, under the Constitution, made up of two houses, 592; unconstitutional legislation by, 595; powers, 596-598. Connecticut, Plymouth fur trade, 94; colony founded, 120-122; Dutch in, 120, 146; Funda mental Orders, 121; population, 12X, 122; charter, 123, 185; Pequot War, 123; in New England Confederation, 126, 127; dispute with Massachusetts, 127; treaty with Stuyvesant, 151; western boundary, 156; merged in New England, 189; separate government resumed, 195; resumes charter, 203; about 1690, 258; self-government, 267; churches in, 273, 275; church and state relations, 276, 552; edu cation, 277, 278; boundary disputes, 295; religious toleration, 352; independent govern ment, 449; state constitution, 462, 463; loses Wyoming valley, 529, 563; claims Northwest, 530; yields claim to Northwest, 530, 574; first American bishopric, 533; trade through New York city, 538; westward movement of Connecticut pioneers, 542; extent of power as colony, 556; Wyoming valley dispute settled by arbitration, 563; delegates in constitutional convention, 586; in small-state group, 590; ratifies federal Constitution, 604. See New Eng land, and Thirteen Colonies. "Connecticut Reserve," 530. Connecticut River, fertile valley, 101; Dutch settlers on, 146; English settlements about 1690, 257, 258, 259- Conservative provisions in Constitution, 600. XVU1 INDEX Conservatives, in Massachusetts, 272, 274, 4x9; in first Continental Congress, 434. See Loyalists. Consociation, in Connecticut, 275. Conspiracy of Pontiac, 389-390. Constables, in England, 8; American like English, 343-344- Constitution, federal, nationality of the signers, 533; framework of the government, 592- 595; compromises, 592, 598; relation to the Articles of Confederation, 596, 600; powers of Congress, 596-598; provisions _ concerning slavery, 598; conservative provisions, 600; committees on detail and on style, 600; signed, 600; plan of ratification, 601; ratified, 603- 610; by Pennsylvania, 604-606; by Massa chusetts, 606-607; by New York, 608; by Virginia, 608-610; arguments for and against, in Pennsylvania, 605-606; Henry's arguments against, 609; first ten amendments, 610-611; contemporary interpretation of, 611-612; re lation to democratic ideals, 612. Constitutional limitations, American ideas, 349. Constitutions, state, 547-55i. Continental army, 465. "Continental Association," of 1774, 435; en forcement, 439; loyalist argument against, 44X. Continental Congress, first, 433~435; appeals re jected, 438; net result, 441. Continental Congress, second, call for, 435; members, 442; appoints Washington com mander, 443; control of army, 445, 465; appeal to Canadians, 446; approaches foreign powers, 448; advises formation of temporary govern ments, 449; opens ports to foreign shipping, 45i; advises independent governments, 452; adopts Declaration of Independence, 453-455; functions, 460; character, 461; methods, 461- 462; economic problems, paper money, 464; management of army, 465; Conway Cabal, 485; Articles of Confederation adopted, 501; re organizes executive departments, 502; appoints peace commissioners, 513$ political authority, 558; governmental functions, 558; a, de facto federal government, 559; colonial policy, 574. Continental money, 464. Convention, Annapolis, 585. Convention, constitutional (of 1787), first sug gested, 584; delegates, 585-588; procedure, 588; nationalist leaders, 589; large and small states, 590; question of representation, 591-592, 598; federal executive, 592-593; checks and balances, 594; the judiciary, 594-595; powers of Congress, 596-598; slave trade and slavery, 597-598; sectionalism, 598; committees on detail and on style, 600; the finished work, 600. Convicts, importation, 33, 62, 321. Conway, General Henry, on service in America, 47i. Conway, Thomas, inspector-general, 485. Conway Cabal, 485. Coode, John, Protestant leader in Maryland, 199, 200. Corn, cultivated by Indians, 50; in Virginia, 57, 64; in New England, xor; in North Carolina, 138; in South Carolina, 141. Cornbury, Lord, misgovernment in New York, 297. Comwallis, Lord, in New Jersey, 479, 480; war in South, 494; campaign in North Carolma, 500; campaign in the Carolinas, 502-503; retires to Virginia, 503; campaign in Virginia, 507; at Yorktown, 507; surrenders, 508. Coronado, explorer, 24. Cortes, conquest of Mexico, 22, 24. Cosby, governor of New York, Zenger case, 299. Cotton, John, mimster in Massachusetts. 99, 105; plan of church government, 107; friendly to Mrs. Hutchinson, 114. Council, English, powers, 6, 7, 8, see Privy Council; colonial, in Virginia, 59, 60, 326, 342; in Pennsylvania, 173; in colonies generally, 240 (powers), 342 (comparison with House of Lords); m Massachusetts, 269, 271, 428, 431; in New York, 298 (power to amend money bills), 342; in the South, power, 327; com parison with House of Lords, 342; under act of 1774 in Massachusetts, 428, 431; in state constitutions, 550. Council for Foreign Plantations, appointed by Charles II, 185. Council for New England, 88; grant to Pilgrims, 94; grants in Massachusetts, 95; grant to Massachusetts Bay Company, 97; Saybrook grant, 121. Country party, in England, 6; in Massachusetts, 272. County, in England, 8; in Virginia, 60, 61, 82; in Massachusetts, 106; in New York, 157. County government, American like English, 343; new American ideas, 350. Coureurs de bois, in fur trade, 215. Court of assizes, in New York, 158. Courten, Sir William, colonizer, 38. Courts, in England, 7, 232; in the colonies, ap pointment, 240; power to declare laws un constitutional, 548, 595; under Articles of Confederation, 562, 563; federal, 594. See Judges. Courts of admiralty, 241; jurisdiction, 403. Cowpens, battle, 503. Coxe, Daniel, sends vessel to the Mississippi, 220. Cranston, Samuel, governor of Rhode Island, 268. Craven, Lord, Carolina proprietor, 136. Criminals, transported, 33, 321; in Virginia, 62. Croghan, George, backwoods leader, 293; agent of Ohio Company, 369. Cromwell, Oliver, rules England, 74, 132, 133; policy in Maryland, 77; administration, 132, 133; takes Acadia and Jamaica, 133; plans against New Netherland, 133, 152; policy toward Dutch, 152, 180; cited, 9. Crown Point, French outpost, 367, 368, 373; abandoned by French, 384; taken by Allen, 446. Cuba, Spanish colony, 21; taken by British, 385; restored, 386. Culloden, battle, 363. Culpeper, Lord, Virginia grant, 81; governor of Virginia, 84; grant of Northern Neck, 320. Cumberland valley, Scotch-Irish in, 291. Currency, regulated by Parliament, 237, 405; under Confederation, 569. Currency Act of 1764, 405. Customs duties, levied by Parliament, 183, 403, 417, 423; by colonial legislatures, 237, 557; controlled by states, 562. Cutler, Manasseh, agent of Ohio Company, 576, 577- Cutler, Timothy, president of Yale College, con verted to Anglican Church, 277. INDEX XIX Dale, Sir Thomas, governor of Virginia, 56. Davenport, John, founder of New Haven, 122. Davies, Samuel, appeals for religious toleration, 331. Deane, Silas, agent of Congress in Paris, 448; commissioner to France, 489. Debtor class, 247; after the Revolution, 580. Debts, in peace negotiations, 521. "Declaration and Resolves" of first Continental Congress, 434. Declaration of Independence, influence of Revo lution of 1688, X94; on disallowance of colonial laws, 239; adopted, 455; political philosophy, 455; list of grievances, 456; nationality of signers, 533. Declaratory Act of 1766, 411. De Grasse, Admiral, commander of French fleet, 505; Yorktown campaign, 507, 508. De Lanceys, in New York, intermarriages, 284. Delaware, Dutch and Swedes in, 146, 150, 151; claimed by Duke of York, 155; grant to Penn, 169, 170; government, 173; population, 174- 175, 281; manufactures, 294; attitude on in dependence, 454, 455; state constitution, 462- 463, .547-551; delegates in constitutional con vention, 587; in small-state group, 592; ratifies federal Constitution, 604. Delaware, Lord, governor of Virginia, 56. Delaware River and valley, importance, 143; Dutch settlers, 146; Swedish settlement, 150; Scotch-Irish settlers, 291 ; controUed by British navy, 481. De Leon, Ponce, explorer, 22. Demarcation, papal line of, 20. Democracy, advocated by John Wise, 275; influ ence of frontier conditions,' 348, 354, 355; in United States, 547, 548, 551; struggle for, 554; in relation to the Constitution, 612. Denmark, in seventeenth century, 17. De Soto, explorer, 23. d'Estaing, Admiral, commands fleet, 492; at tempt on Newport, 493; leaves Savannah, 493. Detroit, founded, 221; French post, 358, 368; British trading post, 498; held by British, 527. d'Iberville, Le Moyne, founds Biloxi, 211, 220. Dickinson, John, criticizes the Townshend Acts, 418; character and views, 418; attitude toward Massachusetts in 1774, 432; opinion of military resistance, 443; hopes for reconciliation, 450; pleads for delay, 453; committees on confed eration and foreign alliances, 454; opposes im mediate declaration of independence, 454, 455; gentleman-farmer, 534; committee on confed eration, 559; in constitutional convention, 587. Dinwiddie, Robert, governor of Virginia, sends mission to Ohio country, 370-371- Disallowance of colonial laws, 238. Divine right, theory of, 7- Dominion of New England, 189; ended, 195. Dongan, Thomas, governor of New York, 161, 196; wins Iroquois, 2x6. Dorchester Heights, fortified, 445- . Downing, Sir George, career and influence, 181, 182. Drake, Francis, exploits, 15, 27, 30- Dress, colonial, 266, 342. Duane, pleads for delay, 453. Dublin, Anglican Archbishop of, cited, 290. Dudley, Joseph, president of New England, 187; associated with Andros, igo, 191; governor of Massachusetts, 253, 269; visits to England, 253; speakership question, 271. Dudley, Thomas, colonizer, 98. Duke's Laws, in New York, 158. Dulany, Daniel, of Maryland, career, 329. Dummer, Jeremiah, defends New England charters, 268. Dunk, George, president of the Board of Trade, 231. Dunmore, Lord, governor of Virginia, 439; op poses revolution, 448; violence, 453. Duquesne, Governor, builds forts, 370. Durham, palatinate of, 68. Dutch, rebellion against Philip II, 14; relations with England, 14, 18, 125, 216; in seventeenth century, 17; Eastern trade, 32, 144; in ¦ Connecticut, 120, 146; in New Netherland, 144- 153; alliance with Iroquois, 150; alliance of 1668, 216; commercial rivalry, 359, 360; loans to United States, 464; relations with Great Britain, 504; aid in Revolution, 504; treaty with United States, 514. Dutch colonists, in New Netherland, 144, 145, 146; in New Sweden, 151; in New York. 156, 157, 160, 284, 294, 340; in New Jersey, 103; in Pennsylvania and Delaware, 174; in Berkshire region, 259; in New York city, 294. Dutch East India Company, exploration, 144. Dutch Guiana, English colony, 41. Dutch language in New York, 284, 340. Dutch Protestants, rebellion, 14; some go to England, 3, 18, 91. Dutch Reformed Church, in New Netherland, 148; in New York, 159, 305; connection with Netherlands, 251. Dutch Republic, war with Great Britain (1781), 504. Dutch West India Company, aims, 144; organ ization, 147. East Florida, British province, 390. East India Company (English), chartered, 4; control in India and China, 233; recovers Madras, 365; government of India, 388; mo nopoly of the China trade, 388; Tea Act of 1773, 426; tea ships, 426-427. East New Jersey, 164, 165; reunited, 204; con flicting grants, 283. Eastland Company, chartered, 4. Eaton, Theophilus, founder of New Haven, 122. Economic theories, sevei. veenth-century, 32, 178- 179; in Restoration era, 132, 135- Education, in England, 13; in Massachusetts, 108; in New Netherland, 149; in New Eng land, 277; in middle colonies, 306; in South, 333-335; in states, 554-555; in Ordinance of 1787, 578. Edwards, Jonathan, character and achievements, 276, 277; writings, 278. Eliot, John, missionary, 125. Elizabeth, Queen, increases royal power, 6; re lations with Spain, 14, 15; aids Huguenots, 15; colonial enterprise, 34, 35- Elizabethan seamen, 27. Ellsworth, Oliver, member Confederation Congress, 566; delegate in constitutional convention, 586; urges equal representation in Senate, 591- 592- Emancipation movement, after the Revolution, 554- XX INDEX England, mother country, i; in 1606, 2; do minions, 2; relations with Scotland, 2, 226; relations with Ireland, 2, 182, 227; population, 2; economic interests, 3-5; landlords, 4; social classes, 3-5, 9; trade, 4, 32, 33, 132-135, 179- 185, 243-247, 261; government, 6-9, 227-232; churches, 10-12; civilization in 1606, 12; edu cation, 13; international relations in seven teenth century, 13-18; relations with Spain, 14, 15, 27-28, 133, 142, 361; with France, 15, *8, J33, 207, 208, 216-224, 360-367; with Russia, 17; with Denmark, 17; with Sweden, 17, 216; with Holland, or Netherlands, 18, 12s, 133, 152-153, 216; sea power founded, 15; chief rivals, 18, 207; outlook on America, 20; claim to North America, 26; early slave trade, 27; motives of colonization, 31-34, 42-43, 88, 92, 100, 133-136; early colonies, 34-42; island colonies, 39-40; under Cromwell, 74; in Resto ration era, 131-134; sea power increased, 132- 133; colonial policies of the Restoration, 135, 181-185; war with Holland (1652), 152; im perialism, seventeenth-century, 178-191; co lonial trade regulations, 170-185; Revolution of 1688, 192-205 (see Revolution of 1688); alliance of 1668, 216; King William's War, 217- 219; Queen Anne's War, 220-224; Act of Union, 226; constitutional changes after 1688, 227-229, 232; colonial empire, 233-242; diffi culties of overseas administration, 242; trade with colonies, 243-247; church influence on colonies, 248-252; intellectual relations with colonies, 252-255; Protestant refugees in, 286, 287; German refugees near London, 287; claims Ohio valley, 359. See Parliament, and Great Britain. English and American ways, chapter on conditions in 1750, 338-355- English colonists, predominant race in Thirteen Colonies, 130, 131, 340, 341; in Pennsylvania, 174-175; majority not in Anglican Church, 248; predominant in New York, 284; in the South, 318, 319; in trans-Allegheny trade, 357, 369, 389; in United States, 532, 533. See name of each colony. English fashions, followed, 266, 342. English language, in Thirteen Colonies, 340, 341; survival of obsolete forms in America, 348. English law, in America, 344-347. English literature in America, 254, 341. English merchants. See Merchants. English population, predominates in United States, 532, 533. See English colonists. English ships, denned, 182. English traders, in the West, 80, 161, 293, 315, _ 357, 369, 389. Englishmen, rights of, 7, 46; attitude toward Revolution, 470-471; opinion after Yorktown, _5°9- Enumerated articles, in Navigation Acts, 182, 183; list extended, 235; modified, 236. Episcopal Church, in United States, 533, 553. See Anglican Church. Episcopal system, n. Episcopalians, in Boston, 273; reorganized, 553; first American bishop, 553. Erie (Pa.), French fort, 370. Erskine, on law of libel, 351. Eugene, Prince, in Queen Anne's War, 221. European background of American history, x. Executive authority, weakened in new govern ments, 463; provisions concerning in consti tutional convention, 592-593. See Governor. Executive council, in state constitutions. 550. Executive departments, under Confederation, 565. Factors, denned, 246. Fairfax, Lord, landed proprietor, 320. Falmouth (Maine), attacked in 1776, 447. Family Compact, of 1733, 362; of 1761, 385. Faneuil, Peter, Boston merchant, 263. Faneuil Hall, gift of Peter Faneuil, 263. Farmers, in England, 3, 5; status in United States, 535; in New England, 538; in the West, 543; in the interior, discontent after the Revolution, 579, 580. See Agriculture. Fashions, influence of English, 266, 342. Fauquier, governor of Virginia, intellectual influ ence, 335; opinion of Patrick Henry, 407. Federal Convention of 1787, 584-600. See Con vention. Federal domain, 574. Federal party, 603; in Pennsylvania, 604-606; in Massachusetts, 607; in New York, 608; in Virginia, 608-609; in First Congress, 610. Federal union, development, 555-563. Federalist, The, essays, 611. Fenwick, proprietor West New Jersey, 164. Ferdinand of Spain, 14. Ferguson, Major Patrick, guerrilla leader, 494; Kings Mountain campaign, 500. Finance, colonial 241. Finance committee of Congress, 462. Finances of United States, controlled by Congress, 460, 462, 502, 565; paper money, 464, 569; loans, 464, 515, 523; requisition system, 568. Findley, William, Anti-Federalist leader, 605. Finns, in New Sweden, 151; in Pennsylvania and Delaware, 174. Fisheries, importance to England, 32, 33; of New England, 101, 102-103, 260; French, near Louisburg, 364; in peace negotiations, 520; after the Revolution, 536. Fishermen visit Newfoundland, 24, 26. Fitzherbert, peace commissioner, 517. Fitzhugh, William, a typical planter, 79. Five Nations, 150. See Iroquois. Fletcher, Benjamin, governor of New York, 218. Florida, explored, 21, 22; colonized, 24; fur trade, 215; in Queen Anne's War, 222; ceded to British, 386; under British rule, 388, 300; no revolutionary spirit, 446; secret agreement concerning, 519; regained by Spain, 520, 522. Fontaine, Peter, views on slavery, 322. Forbes, General, takes Fort Duquesne, 382, 383. Foreign affairs department, with single head, 502. Foreign officers in the Revolution, 466. Fort Casimir, Dutch post, 151. Fort Duquesne, built, 371; Braddock's expedition, 373; taken by British, 382. Fort Edward, established, 373; taken by British in 1777, 483. Fort Frontenac, French post, 358, 368; taken by British, 382, 383. Fort Le Bceuf, Washington at, 371. Fort Orange, Dutch settlement, 146; Iroquois fur trade, 146, 156; renamed Albany, 157. Fort Pitt, settlements near, 496. Fort St. Louis, in Illinois, 211. Fort Schuyler, siege in 1777, 482, 483. INDEX XXI Iort. Stra,SWK' *reaty» 4i6; siege in 1777, 482. *ort William Henry, established, 373; captured 381. Fox, Charles James, character and leadership, 471; m ministry of 1782, 510; foreign secretary! attitude in peace negotiations, 516; resigns, 517; in power, directs treaty of peace, 524 Fox, George, dissenter, 132; founder of Quakers 167, 168. Frame of Government, Pennsylvania, 172. France, power, 15-16; relations with England, 15, 18, 133, 207, 208, 216-224, 360-367; ex plorations in North America, 24-25; American colonies, 25, 207-215, see New France, etc.- colonial policy, 212-215; King William's War, 217-219; Spanish succession, 220; Queen Anne's War, 220-224; relations with Germany, 285; pioneers in trans-AUegheny region, 358; claims Ohio valley, 359, 369; Family Compact, 362, 385; War of the Austrian Succession, 362- 365; points in dispute with the British, 367- 371; French and Indian War with the British, 372-386; loans to United States, 464; other aid to America, 467, 469, 485, 487, 490, 491- relations with Great Britain, 469; first aid to United States, 485; conditions in 1777 486- policy of secret aid, 487; alliance with United States, 490, 491; fleet at Yorktown, 507, 508; attitude in peace negotiations, 515; attitude on claims to West, 518-519; treaty of peace with Great Britain (1783), 522; new loan to Umted States, 523; interested in state consti tutions, 547; consular convention with United States, 570. Francis I of France, 25. Frankfort Land Company, 174, 175. Franklin, proposed state, 529. Franklin, Benjamin, training as colomal agent, 243; Royal Society, 253; influenced by Euro pean writers, 254, 255; early career in Phila delphia, 254; fears establishment of German language, 288; printer, 295; opposes proprie tary rule and tries to secure royal government for Pennsylvania, 301, 394; founds University of Pennsylvania, 307; intellectual achievements, 308; helps Braddock, 373; Albany plan of Union, 376; confidence in colonial growth, 392; leadership, 392; opinion concerning America's place in British Empire, 393; opinion of George IH, 399; attitude on Stamp -Act, 405; testi mony before the House of Commons, 411; on the constitution of the empire, 414; new colony on the Ohio, 416; opinion on prospects in 1768, 422; opinion of Boston Tea Party, 427; deputy postmaster-general for the colonies, 430, 431; Hutchinson letters, 430-431; envoy of Congress to Canada, 446; favors independence, 450; committee on Declaration of Independence, 453; character and contribution to victory, 468, 489; suggests combination of Irishmen and Americans, 469; envoy at Paris, 488-489; propaganda for funds and recognition, 489; allays French irritation, 506; negotiations with Hartley, 512; with Shelburne, _ 512; peace commissioner, 513; proposes cession of Canada to United States, 516; ignores instructions, 519; negotiates concerning private debts, 521; pacifies Vergennes, 523; advice by Price, 527; favors religious liberty, 551, 552; interest in colonial federation, 557; new plan of Union, 558; president of Pennsylvania council, 566; commissioner to negotiate commercial treaties, 57p; opinion of the Shays rebellion, 582; delegate m constitutional convention, influence, 586, 587; cited, 393, 414-415, 427, 431, 482, „ 505, 5»7, 539- franklin, Governor, cited, 294. Frederick^ the Great, in War of the Austrian Succession, 363, 365; in Seven Years' War. 379, 381, 384. Freedom of the press, Zenger case, 299; in Eng land and America, 351; in state constitutions, 550; m federal constitution, 611. Freeman's Farm, battles, 484. Freemen, or voters, of Massachusetts, 103, 104, 105; m Connecticut, 122; in Pennsylvania, 172 French and Indian War, 371-386; opposing forces, 375; events of 1756, 379; of 1757, 381; of 1758, 382; of 1759, 383-384; of 1760-1762, 384-385; treaty of peace, 386. French colonists, in New Amsterdam, 145; in Pennsylvania, 175; in New York city, 294; m Virginia, 317. See Huguenots. French Creek, French fort, 370. French Protestants. See Huguenots. Friends, Society of, 167. Frontenac, Count, governor of New France, 209, 211; and Iroquois, 215; second governorship, 218; policy, 218; defends Quebec, 219; attacks Iroquois, 219. Frontier, influence of, 282, 319, 324, 354, 355. Frontiersmen, in the Revolution, 497; at Kings Mountain, 500; western, 544-545- See Back country. Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina, 140. Fundamental law, English and American ideas, 232. Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, 121. Fur trade, in Virginia, 80, 215, 221; in Plymouth, 94; in South Carolina, 141; in New Nether land, 145, 146; in New York, 160-161, 293, 538- Iroquois, i6r, 215, 368; English and French rivalry, 161, 215, 293, 315, 368; of New France, 209, 210, 215; in South, 215; of Pennsylvania, 293; in Southwest, 315; in West, 358, 368, 498. Gage, General, governor of Massachusetts, 431; government opposed, 442; retires, 445. Galissoniere, Marquis de la, claims Ohio valley, 369. Galloway, Joseph, Pennsylvania conservative, 432; in first Continental Congress, proposes imperial constitution, 434; interest in colonial federation, 557; plan of Union, 557- Galvez, conquests in Southwest, 500. Gaspee affair, 425. Gates, Gen. Horatio, member Board of War, 462, 485; rival of Washington, 467; Saratoga campaign, 484; at Camden, 494. Gates, Sir Thomas, governor of Virginia, 56. General Court, legislature of Massachusetts, 102, 103. Gentlemen, social class in England, 3, 9; in America, 62, 342, 348, 534. Genuine Information, Martin's essay, 611. George I, reduction of power, 228. George li, reduction of power, 228, 379; territory in Hanover, 371; interests, 379. George III, accession, 385, 397; character and political theories, 398-399; conflict with the XX11 INDEX old Whig machine, 399; builds up party of " King's Friends," 401; repeal of Stamp Act, 414; cited on tea tax, 423; attacks colonies, 448; attacked by Declaration of Independence, 456; responsibility for weakness of British government, 472; after Yorktown, 509; re ceives John Adams as minister, 571. Georgetown (S. C), settled, 315. Georgia, founded, 315; slavery, 316; products, 320; war with Spain, 362; loyalists, 441; state constitution, 462-463, 547-55 ij con quered by British, 493; conditions after the Revolution, 541; state institution of higher learning, 555; in large-state group, 590; favors slave trade, 598; ratifies federal Constitution, 604. See South, and Thirteen Colonies. Germain, Lord George, part in the Saratoga campaign, 469, 482; character and control of British army, 472; plan for 1777. 480. German colonists, in Pennsylvania, 175, 176, 288, 293, 303, 305, 341; sects in America, 251, 3°5> 353; in Newport, 263; motives for emigration, 285-287; in England, 287; in New York, 287, 482, 496, 497; in North Carolina, 287, 319; in New Jersey, 288; in Maryland, 288, 310; in Virginia, 288, 317, 3*9. 609; influence in America, 288; buffer communities, 291; pros perous farmers, 293, 323; manufactures, 294; printers, 295; churches, 305; education, 306; in Georgia, 315; in South Carolina, 3x8, 3ig; in Thirteen Colonies, 341; in Mohawk valley, 287, 482, 496, 497; immigrants in United States, 532; in Pennsylvania convention, 605; attitude toward federal Constitution (in Vir ginia), 609. German confederation of 1815, compared with Articles of Confederation, 560. German Empire, armed neutrality, 504. German language, in colonies, 288, 341; in the states, 532. German Reformed Churches, in middle colonies, 305. German sects, in American colonies, 251, 305, 353; radical Protestantism, 353. German soldiers supplied to British, 444; in New Jersey, 479J with Burgoyne, 482, 483; on the American side, 482, 497. Germanna (Va.), founded, 317. Germantown (Pa.), founded, 175; manufactures, 294; battle, 481. Germany, in seventeenth century, 16; in seven teenth and eighteenth centuries, 285; suffering from war, 285; relations with France, 285; religious troubles, 286; the great migration, 286. Gerry, Elbridge, opposes Constitution, 607; op- Soses "excess of democracy," 613. raltar, acquired by Great Britain, 223, 361; importance in control of trade routes, 360. Gilbert, Raleigh, in Plymouth Company, 45. Gilbert, Sir Humphrey, colonizer, 34. Gist, Christopher, agent of Ohio Company, 369; travels with Washington, 371. Glen, governor of South Carolina, cited, 326. Gold, from Spanish America, 22; English search for, 32. Gooch, governor of Virginia, religious policy, 331. Gorges, Sir Ferdinando, colonizer, 38, 39, 41, 42; Council for New England, 87-88; Maine, 88; criticizes Massachusetts, no. Gorton, Samuel, founds Warwick, 118. Government, of England, 6-9, 227-232; of Great Britain, 228-232, 379, 397"398; of New France, 209; of the colonies, see Colonial government; of the states, 547-551; of the United States, see Continental Congress, Confederation, and Constitution; territorial, 576-578. See Au tocracy, Democracy, Representative, Local government, etc. . Governor, in Virginia, 59. 60, 325* 326; in Plym outh, 94; in Massachusetts, 103, 269-272; expected to enforce Acts of Trade, 184, 235; royal instructions to, 238; imperial agent, 240; veto power, 240; control by colonies, salary, 241, see Governor's salary; in Connecticut and Rhode Island, 267-268; in Maryland, 325; in the South, 327; representative of the king, 342; in states, authority weakened, 463; in state constitutions, 550-551; election, 551; of Northwest Territory, 577. Governor's salary, 241; in Massachusetts, 270; New York, 298; Pennsylvania, 300; Virginia, Maryland, and the Carolinas, 325, 336; proposal to pay by parliamentary tax, 404. Grafton, Duke of, ministry, 415. Granville, Lord, landed proprietor, 320. Grasse, Admiral De, commander of French fleet, 505; Yorktown campaign, 507, 508. Graves, Admiral, fights De Grasse, 508. Great Awakening, influence of Whitefield, 252; main account, 276, 277; Presbyterians, 306; in Virginia, 33^- Great Britain, in Queen Anne's War, 222-224; created by Act of Union, 226; government, 228-232, 379, 397-398; overseas empire, 233; control of colonies, 233-242, 391; policy as to commerce and sea power, 350-360; relations with Spain, 361, 362, 374, 385, 469. 488; Anglo- Spanish War of I73p, 362; war with France, 363-365; claims Ohio valley, 368-371; policy iu 1754, 37i; French and Indian War, 372-386; alliance with Prussia, 374; treaty of 17637 386; imperial problems and policies (1760-1766), 388-412; Proclamation of 1763, 390; plans for colonial reorganization, 391 ; old causes of friction with colonies, 393; government under Hanoverian kings, 397-398; politics under George III, 398-401; new American policies, 402-412; Stamp Act, 404-411; lack of con structive statesmanship, 414; Townshend Acts, 417; Coercive Acts, 427-430, 438; American Revolution, 437-524, see Revolution; no large army, 444; advantages in Revolutionary War, 459; handicapped by opposition of European powers, 469; British opposition to policy of coercing colonies, 470-471; governmental weakness, 471-472; the fighting services in Revolutionary War, 472; effect of French alliance with United States, 492; war with Spain (1779), 500; opposed by neutral powers, 504; war with the Dutch, 504; peace with United States, 512, 515-524; treaties of 1782 and 1783, 522-524; holds posts in northern United States, 527; relations with United States, 571-572. See England, and Parliament. Great Case of Liberty of Conscience, 168. "Great commoner," 415. See Pitt. Great Lakes, in dispute between France and Great Britain, 368. Great migration, to New England, 98; from Germany, 286. INDEX XX111 Great Valley of Virginia, defined, 49; settled, 318, 324; churches and missionary preachers, 331; attitude toward Constitution, 609. Green Bay, French post, 358; held by British, 527. Green Mountain pioneers, Whigs, 497. Greene, Gen. Nathanael, quartermaster-general, 465; military ability, 466; campaign in the South, 502-503. Grenville, George, factional leader, 400; character and policy, 402; Stamp Act, 405; ministry ends, 409; argues for sovereignty of Parliament, 410. Grenville, Sir Richard, exploits, 35, 36. Grotius, Hugo, Dutch author, 17; read by Ameri cans, 341. Guadeloupe, taken by British, 384; restored, 386. Guerrilla leaders, in South, 494. Guiana, English colony, 40-41. Guild system, breakdown, 4. Guilford Courthouse, battle, 503. Habeas Corpus Act, 346, 347; in Ordinance of 1787, 578. Habitants, m New France, 214. Haiti, Spanish colony, 21. Hakluyt, Richard, geographer, influence, 31; map, 28-29; member Virginia Company, 45; cited, 26, 31. Half-Way Covenant, adopted, 273. Halifax, founded, 367. Halifax, Earl of, president Board of Trade, 231. Hals, Dutch painter, 17. Hamilton, Alexander, opposition to up-state po litical machine, 539; member Confederation Congress, 566; opposes New York Trespass Act, 572; urges revision of Articles of Con federation, 584; proposes convention at Phila delphia, 585; delegate in constitutional con vention, 587; "nationalist leader, 589; plan of constitution, 591; plan for asingle executive, 592; Committee on Style, 600; Federal leader, 608; author of The Federalist, 611. Hamilton, Andrew, defends Zenger, 299; speaker Pennsylvania assembly, 300; cited, 300. Hamilton, Col. Henry, promotes border warfare, 498; contest with Clark, 499. Hancock, John, sloop Liberty seized, 419; presi dent second Continental Congress, 442; presi dent Massachusetts state convention, attitude toward Constitution, 607. Hanover, under George H, 371; in Seven Years War, 374, 381. Hanoverian kings, government, 397, 39°- Hapsburg claim to Spain, 219, 220. Harcourt, Robert, colonizer, 41. Harrower, John, indentured servant, 321. Hartford, founded, 121. Hartley, David, negotiations for peace, 512; peace commissioner under Fox, 524; interest in American problems, 527. Harvard, John, gift to college, 109. Harvard College, 109; under hberal control, 275; protest against Great Awakening, 277; develop ment, 278. ._,... Harvey, Capt. John, governor of Virginia, 60. Hat manufacture, restricted in colonies, 236. Hawkins, Capt. John, exploits, is, 27. Hawkins, William, visits Brazil, 26. Haynes, John, founder of Connecticut, 120. Head right system, 63. Heath, Sir Robert, patent or charter for Carolina, 41, 136. Hemp, bounties, 402. Henderson, Richard, founder of Kentucky, 496, 541- Henrico County (Va.), large estates, 320. Henry, Patrick, back-country farm, 324; leader of back-country party, 330; Parson's Cause, 395; opposes Stamp Act, 406-407; advocates com mittee of correspondence, 425; in first Conti nental Congress, 433, 434; favors state support of church, 552; plan of Union, 557; state politics, 566; opposes Jay's Spanish policy, 574; Anti-Federalist. 603, 609; arguments against Constitution, 609. Henry VII, sends out Cabot, 26. Henry VIII, increases royal power, 6; relations with Spain, 14. Henry IV of France, 16, 207. Herkimer, General, at Oriskany, 483; a German Whig 532. Hesse, Landgrave of, supplies soldiers to British, 444. High church party, in Anglican Church, 96; in South Carolina, 313. Hillsborough, Lord, colonial secretary, 416; opinion of Letters from a Farmer, 419; contest with Massachusetts assembly, 421. Hobbes, Thomas, philosopher, 132. Holdernesse, Lord, circular to colomal governors, 370. Holland, or the Netherlands, under Philip H, 14; in seventeenth century, 17; relations with England, 18, 133, 152, 153; Pilgrims in, 92; in America, 144; war with England (1652), 152; relations with Great Britain, 469. See Dutch. Holmes v. Walton, cited, 548. Holt, Chief-Justice, decision on Maryland, 202. Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, disrupted, 285; compared with Articles of Confederation. 560. Honduras, English colony, 41. Hooker, authority on natural rights, 344. Hooker, Thomas, founder of Connecticut, 120. Hopkins, Stephen, opposes Stamp Act, 406. Housatonic valley, settled, 259. House. See Commons, Lords, Burgesses, Assem bly, etc. House of Hope, Dutch colony, 120, 146. Howard of Effingham, Lord, governor of Virginia, 84. Howe, General (Lord), killed at Ticonderoga, 382; monument by Massachusetts, 392. Howe, General Sir William, at Bunker Hill, 44; leaves Boston, 445; failure to cooperate in Saratoga campaign, 469; military ability, 473; campaign of 1776, 478-480; attempted diplo macy, 478; campaign of 1777, 480-482; retires, 492. Howe, Lord, naval commander, 478; attempted diplomacy, 478; at Newport, 493. Hudson/SHenry, explorer, 144. Hudson Bay, explored by Hudson, 144; French interests, 212; cession by France to Great Britain, 224. Hudson River and valley, importance, 143; ex plored by Hudson, 144; Dutch settlers, 146; campaign of 1776, 478; campaign of 1777, 483- 484. Hudson's Bay Company, formed, 134. XXIV INDEX Huguenots, or French Protestants, in France, 15- x6, 96; in Florida, 24; in Carolina, 25; in South Carolina, 141, 317, 332; excluded from French colonies, 213; churches in America, 251; in Newport, 263; in Virginia, 317. Hundred Associates, of New France, 207, 209. Hunter, Robert, governor of New York, promotes immigration of Germans, 287; proposes tax ation by Parliament, 298; intellectual character, 307; appoints Colden, 308. Hutchinson, Anne, in Massachusetts, 113; ban ished, 114; followers in Portsmouth and New port^ 117, 118. Hutchinson, Thomas, house attacked, 409; view of Adams, 420; governor of Massachusetts, 424; character, career, and political views, 424; tea ships, 427; letters secured by Franklin, 430; opposed by Franklin, 431; goes to Eng land, 431; cited, 258. Hyde, Edward. See Clarendon. Hyde, Lawrence, colonizer, 41. Iberville, Le Moyne d', founds Biloxi, 211, 220. Illinois, veto power in council of revision, 550. Illinois country, French in, 211, 358; conquered by Clark, 499; county of Virginia, 499; British influence m, 527.1 Imperialism, English, seventeenth-century, 182- 191; development, 185; principles, 187; re organization of colonial governments 1685- 1688, 188-192; reorganization after 1688, 200- 204; eighteenth-century, 226, 233-242, 388- 412; in 1760-1766, 388-412; plans for colonial reorganization, 391; friction with colonies, 393; need of imperial statesmanship, 397; Gren- ville's policy, 402-405; Stamp Act, 404-412. Indentured servants, in Virginia, 62; in Mary land, 71; in Pennsylvania, 172; in New Eng land, 266; in middle colonies, 292; in the tide water, 321; in United States, 535. India, _ English and French "factories" in, 360; British predominance, 386; governed by East India Company, 388. Indiana, British influence in, 527. Indians, under Spanish -rule, 22; English mission ary activity, 34, 123; in Virginia, 49-51, 58, 62, 63, 82, 439; political organization, 49, 50; customs, 50; agriculture, 50; in Maryland, 70; Pequot War, 123; in New England, 123, 124, 128; King Philip's War, 128; in New Nether land, 150; influence of Andros, igo; La Salle's plans, 211; French brandy, 212; fur trade, 215, 293, see Fur trade; under Frontenac, 218; in Maine, 258; in the Carolinas, 313; trans- Allegheny trade, 357, 369; in French and 1 Indian War, 373, 376; in the West, 389, 390, 528; Pontiac's War, 390; Lord Dunmore's War, 439; aid to British in Revolutionary War, 444, 483, 497, 498; under St. Leger, 483; policy in Revolution, 497; Indian problem under the Confederation, 528. See Iroquois. Indigo, in South Carolina and Georgia, 320. Inflation, in New England, 265 ; in Massachusetts, 272; Continental currency, 464; under the Confederation, 569, 581. Inns of Court, American lawyers trained in, 253, 334. 346. Intendant, officer of New France, 209. Interstate commerce, under Confederation, 571; Congress given power to regulate, 597. Invincible Armada, 15, 30. Ipswich, opposes Andros taxation, 191. Ireland, colonized, 2, 289; relation to England, 2, 182, 227; Irish ships not foreign, 182: regu lation of trade with colonies, 183; war between James II and William III, 217; export of woolens prohibited, 227; trade with New England, 262: German refugees, 287; economic grievances, 290; influence on American practices and ideals, 348; assistance to America, 469; relations with Great Britain, 469; invites New England trade, 537. Irish colonists, in Virginia, 77; in American colonies, 135, 251, 252; in South Carolina, 141; in Pennsylvania, 175; in Newport, 263; causes of emigration, 289; in Revolutionary army, 469; frontier Whigs, 497 ; immigrants in United States, 532. See Scotch-Irish. Iron manufacture, restricted in colonies, 236. Iroquois, alliance with Dutch, 150; under English influence, 156, 161; fur trade, 161, 215, 368; war with New France, 208, 209; French at tempts to win, 215, 216, 221; massacre of La Chine, 216; treaty with French, 221; British protectorate recognized, 224; in King George's War, 363-365; in dispute between France and Great Britain, 368; dominate Ohio valley, 368; treaty of Fort Stanwix, 416; raids in Revolution, 498; retaliation by Washington, 499- Isabella of Spain, 14. Island colonies, 39-40; in 1660, 130. See West Indies. Italy, in seventeenth century, 16. Jacobites, in 1745, 363. Jamaica, Spanish colony, 21; taken by English, 133; constitutional controversies, 338; pro posed attack (1782), 510. James, Duke of Yoxk, activities, 134; extent of patent, 155; government of New York, 157, 158, 159- . See James II. James I, King of England, 2, 37; conflict with Parliament, 6; church policy, 12, pi; Spanish policy, 15, 45: marriage, 17; Guiana patent, 41; patent for Nova Scotia, 42; Virginia charters, 45, 54, 59; policy toward Pilgrims, 93. James H, Duke of York, 134, i55~i59; becomes king, 159; Roman Catholic, 159, 193; grant to Penn, 168-169; religious policy, 192, 193; Revolution of 1688, 192-193; pension from Louis XIV, 216; tries to regain throne, 217; death, 220; supported by Catholic Irish, 289- James VI of Scotland. See James I, King of England. James River, navigable, 48; settlements on, 51, 61; proposal to connect with the Ohio, 541. Jamestown settlement, 51. Jay, John, in first Continental Congress, 434; hopes for reconciliation, 450: pleads for delay, 453; favors abandonment of New York city to Howe, 478; peace commissioner, 513. 5*4! envoy^ to Spain, 514; negotiations for West, 519; ignores instructions, 519; rnixed ancestry, 532; opposition to up-state political machine, 539; opposes colonization of the West, 544; antislavery leader, 554; Secretary of_ Foreign Affairs, 565; secures resolution denying right of state to obstruct a treaty, 572; policy towards Spain, 573; opinion of the Shays rebellion, 582; INDEX XXV Federal leader, 608; author of The Federalist, 610; cited, 544, 545, 582. Jefferson, Thomas, influenced by European writers, 255; leader of back-country party, 330; broad thinking, 393; opinion of Patrick Henry, 407; advocates committee of correspondence, 425; Declaration of Independence, 453, 455; governor of Virginia, retreats from British, 507; declines peace commission, 513; typical country gentleman, 534; Notes on Virginia, 540; opinion of tobacco culture, 540; opinion of manufactures, 541; on the suffrage in Virginia,_ 548; on apportionment, 540-550; on election of governor, 551; favors religious liberty, 551, 552; law abolishing primogeniture, 554; favors emancipation and colonization 01 negroes, 554; proposals for public education, 555; theory of British Empire as a federation, 556; on nature of Confederation, 563; member Confederation Congress, 566; devises decimal system of currency, 569; commissioner to negotiate commercial treaties, 570; proposes public land system, 575; plan for territories, 576; opinion of the Shays rebellion, 582; favors Constitution, 609; cited, 407, 425, 540, 541. Jesuits, in Maryland, 70, 73, 74; missions to Indians, 208, 211, 212; in New France, 213; colony on Maine coast, 216. Jesus, Hawkins's ship, 27. Jews, in New Netherland, 146; in Pennsylvania, 173; in Newport, 263; in New York, 304. Johnson, Edward, Massachusetts author, 100. Johnson, Samuel, president of King's College, 254, 307; influence of Berkeley, 254. Johnson, Samuel, tract against colonies, 470. Johnson, Sir Nathaniel, governor of South Caro lina, 222. Johnson, Sir William, in King George's War, 365; in French and Indian War, 373; superintendent of Indian affairs, 377; treaty of Fort Stanwix, 416; son and nephew, 482; knighted, 534. Johnsons, attach Indians to British cause, 444; in Revolution, 482; loyalist influence, 497. Joint-stock companies before 1606, 4. Joliet, Louis, explorer, 210. Joncaire, in King George's War, 365; meets Washington, 371. Jones, Paul, victory over Seraj>is, 467. Judges, in England, 7; colonial, dispute as to tenure of office, 394; power to declare laws un constitutional, 548; state, 551; federal, 594; control over unconstitutional legislation, 595. Judiciary, state, 551; under Articles of Con federation, 562, 563; federal, 594. Juniata valley, Scotch-Irish in, 291. Jury trial, in England, 7; in America, 347. Justices of the peace, in England, 8; in Virginia, 60; in Massachusetts, 106; in New York, 158; American like English, 343. Kalb, General, valuable service, 466; at Camden, 494* Kalm, Swedish writer, cited, 294. Kanawha River, route to West, 542. Kansas, Coronado in, 24. Kaskaskia, British trading post, 498; taken by Clark, 499. Keith, George, Quaker leader, 304. Kennebec River colony, 47, 87. Kent Island, in Maryland, 70, 72. Kentucky, colonized, 496; county of Virginia, 497; jindian raids, 498, 499; Clark's expedition, 499; _ claim to statehood, 529; opposes Jay's Spanish policy, 574. Keppel, Admiral, refuses service in America, 471. Kidnaped white servants, in Virginia, 62. King, of England, powers, 6, 7, 227-228; head of church, 10; governs Virginia, 46, 54, 59; title to land, 63; control of colonies, 180; reduction of power, 227-228; in Council, 228-229. See Privy Council. King, Ruf us, member Confederation Congress, 566; delegate in constitutional convention, 586; nationalist leader, 589; Committee on Style, 600. King George's War, 364. King Philip's War, 128. King William's War, 217-219. King's Bench, Court of, 7. King's College, founded, 307. "King's Friends," party in Parliament, 401; in power, 422, 471. Kings Mountain, battle, 500. Knox, General Henry, Secretary of War, 565. Kocherthal, Joshua, promotes colonization, 286. Kosciusko, valuable service, 466; fortifies Bemis Heights, 484. Laborers, in England, 3-5; in the middle colonies, 292; in the tidewater, 321; in United States, 535-536. See Indentured servants, and Slavery. La Chine, massacre,2i6. Lafayette, Marquis de, valuable service, 466; allays French irritation, 506; campaign in Virginia, 507. Lake Champlain, in dispute between France and Great Britain, 367. Lake George, in dispute between France and Great Britain, 367; battle, 373, 392. Lancaster (Pa.), settled, 282; Germans and Swiss in, 288, 293; fine farms, 293; manu factures, 295; on route to West, 542. Land bank, in Massachusetts, 237. 272. Land Ordinance of 1785, 575, 578. Land system, of United States, 575- Land tenure, in Virginia, 63; in Maryland, 71; in New England, 101, 350; in New Netherland, 145; in New York, 160, 283; in Pennsylvania, 171, 283-284; in New France, 214; in middle colonies, 282; in New Jersey, 283; inheritance in New England, 350; in Virginia, 554. See Quitrents. Landgrave, title in Carolma, 137. Landlords, in England, 4, 5; in middle colonies, 283; in Ireland, 290. See Land tenure. Lansing (of N. Y.), opposes Constitution, 608. La Salle, achievements, 211. Laud, Bishop, church policy, 96; supports auto cratic rule, 97; commissioner for the colonies, iog. Laurens, peace commissioner, 513. Lawyers, American, trained in Inns of Court, 253, 334, 346; influence, 346. Lee, Arthur, commissioner to France, 489. Lee, Gen. Charles, character, 465; battle of Monmouth, 492. Lee, Richard Henry, advocates committee of correspondence, 425; in first Continental Con gress, 433; favors independence, 449; moves for American independence, 453; opposed to Washington, 467; opposes Constitution, 600. XXVI INDEX Leeward Islands, English colony, 130. Legislature, state, 549, 550; elects governor and judges, 551. Leisler, Jacob, party leader, 196; revolt, 197-198; character, 197; fall, 198. Leisler's revolt, 196-198. Letters from a Farmer, Dickinson's, 418, 419. Letters from an American Farmer, cited, 354- Lexington, battle, 442. Leyden, Pilgrims in, 92. Libel law, English and American, 351* Liberty, Hancock's sloop seized, 419. Lincoln, Earl of, Puritan leader, 98. Lincoln, General, loses Charleston, 493, 494. Lindsay, Capt. David, in slave trade, 262. Lining, John, Royal Society, 253. Literature, English, in America, 254, 341; New England, 278; in 1750, 341- Livingston, Robert R., committee on Declaration of Independence, 453; first Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, 462; on arbitration of Wyoming valley dispute, 563; on nature of Confederation, 563* Livingstons, Scotch family in New York, 161; intermarriages, 284; typical American gentry, 534- Loans, from foreign countries, 464. Local government, in England, 8; in Virginia, 60; in Massachusetts, 106; in New Netherland, 148; in New England, 267; American like English, 343-344; new American ideas, 350. Locke, John, philosopher, 132; member Board of Trade, 231; influence^ on American thought, 255, 342; Two Treatises of Government, 194; influence on Americans, 342; authority on natural rights, 344; defends English Revolution of 1688, 456. Logan, James, complains of Scotch-Irish in Pennsylvania, 291; scientist and man of affairs, 308. London, importance in 1606, 4; trade with plan tations, 246; German refugees, 287; attitude of merchants in 1775, 438. London Company, for settling Virginia, 46, 47. Long Island, Dutch settlers, 146; English settlers, 146, 148, 149; divided between Dutch and English, 151; patent to Duke of York, 155: made part of New York, 156; influence of New England, 157; discontent, 158; large land grants, 283; battle, 479. Long Parliament, 74. Lord Dunmore's War, 439. ' Lord lieutenant, in England, 8. Lords, House of, in 1606, 6; reduction of power, 228. Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plantations, 230. See Board of Trade. Loudoun, Lord, in French and Indian War, 379, 381. Louis XI of France, 15. Louis XIV, promotes French expansion, 208; colonial policy, 213; aids James H, 217; in King William's War, 217; Spanish succession, 220; in Queen Anne's War, 220, 221; wars against German states, 285. Louis XV, weakness, 378. Louis XVI, character, 486; policy toward United States, 487. Louisburg, importance in control of trade routes, 360; main account, 363-364; taken in 1745, 364; return of, 365; saved from attack, 381; taken in 1758, 381, 382. Louisiana, colony begun by Iberville, 221; ceded to Spain, 386. Loyalists, or Tories, in first Continental Congress, 434; views, 440; social factors, 440; argument, 441; deprived of liberty of speech, 441; aid to British in Revolutionary War, 444f 460, etc.; defeat at Moores Creek Bridge, 447; m oppose independence, 449; persecuted and disarmed, 451-452; in New York, 475, 482; in New Jer sey, 479, 480; in Pennsylvania, 492; in South Carolina, 493, 494; in North Carolina, 493; in Georgia, 493; on the frontier, 497; problem in peace negotiations, 521; hardships, 521, 522; compromise, 522; states do not keep agreements concerning, 572. Lucas, Eliza, wife of Charles Pinckney, 329. Lumber, in New England, 102; in South Carolina, 141; trade, 247* 294. Lutherans, in New Netherland, 149; in Penn sylvania, 175, 305; first American synod, 305; in Virginia, 331; in Thirteen Colonies, con servatism, 353. Lyman, Phineas, in French and IndianWar,373,3g2. McKean, Chief- Justice, Federal leader in Penn sylvania, 605. Mackinaw, French post, 358; British trading post, 4g8; held by British, 527. Madison, James, educated at Princeton, 336; op poses state support of church, 552; on nature of Confederation, 563; member of Confederation Congress, 566; on obligations to army, 567; dis couraged by sectional feeling over Mississippi question, 574; favors cooperation of Virginia and Maryland, 585; proposes convention at Philadelphia, 585; character, delegate in con stitutional convention, 585, 587; nationalist leader, 589; opposes compromise on representa tion, 592; advocates congressional veto on state laws, 594; favors West, 599; Committee on Style, 600; favors Constitution, 608, 609; elected to First Congress, 610; author of The Federalist, 611; interpretation of the Constitution, 612. Madras, recovered from French, 365. Magellan, explorer, 21. Magna Carta, argument against governor's salary, 344- Magnolia Christi, Mather's book, 274. Mahan, cited, 505. Maine, first English colony in, 37, 47; proprietary government, 88; Plymouth fur trade, 94; Puri tan settlers, 117; absorbed by Massachusetts, 117; patent to Duke of York, 155; merged in New England, 1S7; joined with Massachusetts (1691), 203; Jesuit colony on the coast, 216; in King William's War, 218, 219; Queen Anne's War, 221; about 1690, 257; Indian wars, 258, 259; remains part of Massachusetts, 529; set tled by New Englanders, 542; opponents of the federal Constitution in, 606. Makemie; Francis, Presbyterian leader, 251, 306. Malaria, m Virginia, 49. Mandamus councilors, in Massachusetts, 431. Manhattan Island, Dutch settlers, 144, 145, 146. Manila, taken by British, 385; restored, 386. Manorial estates, in England, 5; in Maryland, 71. Manorial system, in Carolina, 137; in New Nether land, 145; in New York, zoo, 283. INDEX xxvii Mansfield, Chief- Justice, argues for sovereignty of Manufactures', in 'England, 4; in Pennsylvania, 176; English policy, 179; Board of Trade, 230 232; colomal, restricted by Parliament, 236; de velopment, 243; in New England, 264; in Ulster 289, 290; in middle colonies, 294; of United States, 538, 54I. Marcos, Friar, explorer, 24. Marietta, founded, 578. Marion, guerrilla leader, 494. Marlborough, Duke of, in Queen Anne's War, 22r Marquette, Father Jacques, explorer, 210 Marshall, John, favors Constitution, 608 Marthas Vineyard, patent to Duke of York 155 Martin, Luther, delegate in constitutional conven tion, 587; leader of small-state group, 590; pro vision concerning enforcement of laws and treaties of the United States, sgs; denounces slave trade, 597; Anti-Federalist, 603; opposes Constitution in Maryland, 607; essay Genuine Information, 6ir; democratic feeling, 613 Martinique, taken by British, 386; restored, 386. Mary, Queen of England, 14. Mary, Queen of Scots, 14. Mary H?- accession, T94. Maryland, charter, 67-69; boundaries, 68; early settlers, 69-72; religious toleration, 70, 73 76 77; ClaiDorne, 70, 75, 76; manors, 71; tobacco' 72, 320; government, 72; parliamentary com missioners, 75, 76; Toleration Act, 76, 77- Puri tan revolt, 76-77; conditions in 1688, 84-85; controversy with Pennsylvania, 169-170, 296; friction with imperial collectors, 185; Revolution of 1688, 198-200; discontent, 199; Protestant Association 199; royal province, 202, 312; trade with England, 246; Anglican Church, 248, 332; Germans in, 288, 319; dispute with Pennsylvania settled, 296; securely established before 1700, 3ir; royal government, and again proprietary, 312; growth of population, 314-315; slavery in, 317; Germans and Scotch-Irish in, 319; quitrent troubles, 320; governor's power, 325; churches, 332; claims benefit of English statutes, 346; laws against Catholics, 352; proprietors exempt from taxation, 394; votes for independence, 454; state constitution, 462-463, 547-551; ratifies Articles of Confederation, 501; opposes state claims to West, 530; prohibits importation of slaves, 534; western land question, 560; confer ence with Virginia, 585; delegates in constitu tional convention, 587; in small-state group, 590; ratifies federal Constitution, 607. See South, and Thirteen Colonies. Maryland Gazette, newspaper founded, 335. Mason, Capt. John, proprietor New Hampshire, 88. Mason, George, delegate in constitutional conven tion, 585; denounces slave trade, 597; Anti- Federalist, 603, 609; opposes popular election of President, 613. Mason and Dixon's line, 296. Massachusetts, early settlements, 95; Massa chusetts Bay Company, 95, 97 ; original bounda ries, 97; charter of 1629, 98, 103, 187; Cambridge Agreement, 98; leaders, 98-100; motives of col onization, 100; population, 100, 258; rapid development, 100; physical features, ror; land tenure, ror; industries, 102; government, 103- 110, 269-272; voters, 103,104,^ 274; Puritan oligarchy, 104; Body of Liberties, 106; town meeting, ro6; church organization, 107; union of church and state, 107; religious intolerance, 108, 113-116; importance of church, 108; edu cation, 108, 278, 554; practical independence, 109, 127; dissenters, 109, 112-115; persecution 115-116; in New England Confederation, 126, 127; dispute with Connecticut, 127; independ ence threatened, 128; lands claimed by Duke of York, 155; relations with Charles II, 186; char ter annulled, 187; merged in New England, 187; land titles and taxes under Andros, 190, igr; separate government resumed, 195; charter of 1691, 202-204; Queen Anne's War, 221; land bank, 237, 272; royal collector, 241; trade, 247; about 1690, 257, 258; expansion westward, 259; paper money, 265; government under second charter, 269-272; constitutional conflicts, 270- 272; explanatory charter of 1725, 27r; military policy, 27r; party politics, 272; churches in, 273-277; witchcraft epidemic, 274; separation of church and state, 276, 552; boundary dispute, 29s; religious toleration, 352; writs of assist ance, 396; customs disputes, 419; Circular Letter, 421; controversy revived by extremists, 423; Government Act passed by Parliament in 1774, 428; resistance to Coercive Acts, 43r; provincial congress, 432; loyalists, 440; out break of Revolution, 441; independent govern ment, 449; state constitution, 462, 463, 547-551; claim to western New York, 529; claims North west, 530; yields claim to Northwest, 530, 574; method of adopting state constitution, 547; apportionment, 549; suspensive veto, 550; choice of judges, 551; religious discriminations, 551-552; provision for public education, 554; Shays rebellion, 581; proposes federal conven tion, 584; delegates in constitutional convention, 586; in large-state group, 590; ratifies federal Constitution, 606-607. See New England, and Thirteen Colonies. Massachusetts Government Act, 428. Massasoit, Indian chief, 128. Mather, Cotton, writings, 250, 274, 278; Royal Society, 253; recommends Dudley, 270; char acter, 274; church policy, 275. Mather, Increase, mission to England, 192, 253, works for Massachusetts charter, 202; theologi cal writings, 250; visits England, 253; colonial agent, 253; character, 274; church policy, 275. Mathers, theological writings, 250; church policy, 275. Maumee River, Celoron's journey, 369. Mayflower, voyage, 93. Mayflower Compact, 94. Mayor, in England, 9. Mechanics, in United States, 535, 536. Menendez, in Florida, 24. Mennonites, in Pennsylvania, 175, 288, 305; in Switzerland, 286; community settlements, 324. Mercantile theory of economics, 178-179. Merchants, Canadian, on Indian trade, 498; op pose surrender of the West to United States, 528. Merchants, colonial, in New England, 263, 265, oppose writs of assistance in Massachusetts, 396; customs disputes in Massachusetts, 419; tea tax, 426; loyalists, 440, 441. Merchants, English, social class, 3, 9; develop ment, 4, 5; promote colonies, 37, 38, 45; in Restoration era, 132, 133; influence on colonial policy, 181, 182; War of the Spanish Succession, XXVU1 INDEX 220; object to colonial currency, 237; relations with planters, 246; relations with colonies, 247; influence in Parliament, 401; favor repeal of Stamp Act, 409; attitude concerning Coercive Acts, 438; attitude toward Revolution, 470; influence on treaty with United States, 524; oppose surrender of West to United States, 528. Merchants, Irish, invite New England trade, 537. Merchants, Scotch, influence for Union, 226. Merion (Pa.), 175. Merrimac valley, in dispute, 257; settled, 259. Methodist Episcopal Church, national organi zation, 553. Methodists, in West, 545. Mexico, Spanish colony, 22, 24.. Miami Indians, friendly to British, 369. Miami River, Celoron's journey, 369. Michigan, held in part by British, 527- Middle colonies, beginnings, 143-177; chapter on period 1689-1760, 281-309; rapid expansion, 281; land policies, 282-284; immigration, 284- 2g2; industries, 292-295; religion, 303-305; education, 306; religious toleration, 352; atti tude toward Massachusetts in i774» 432- See names of colonies. Middle Temple, colonials in, 334. Milborne, son-in-law of Leisler, 198. Military service, question of, in Pennsylvania, 302. Militia, character, 465. Minorca, attacked by French, 374; captured, 379; lost by British, 509. "Minutemen," in Massachusetts, 442. Miquelon, retainedby France, 386. Missionaries to Indians, Spanish, 22, 24; English, 33-34, 125; French, 208, 210, 211, 212; Mora vian, 305. Mississippi River, discovered by De Soto, 23 ; ex plored by Joliet and Marquette, 210; explored by La Salle, 211; English on (1699), 220; free navigation question, 489, 519, 543, 573. Mississippi valley, French occupation, 211; Eng lish traders in, 357; in the Revolution, 499, 500. Mobile, French post, 358; taken by Spain, 500. "Mock" trials, clause in Declaration of Independ ence, 429. Mohawk valley, settled, 282; German colonists, 287, 482, 496, 497; military operations in 1777, 482; Whigs, 497; Indian raids, 498. Mohegans, Indian tribe, 123. Molasses, trade restricted, 235. Molasses Act, 235, 236; American objections, 247; evaded, 391; not enforced, 403. Money, provisions in Constitution, 596. See Paper money. . Monk, General, friend of Charles II, 134. Monmouth, battle, 492. Monongahela River, route to West, 542. Monroe, member Confederation Congress, 566. Montcalm, Marquis of, character, 378; takes Os wego, 379; takes Fort William Henry, 381; de fends Quebec, 383-384; death, 384. Montesquieu, read by Americans, 341 ; \ influence on American constitutions, 549. Montgomery, Richard, Canadian expedition, 447, Montreal, French at, 25; taken by Amherst, 385; taken by Montgomery, 447; Indian trade, 498. Moores Creek Bridge, battle, 447. Moravians, in Pennsylvania, 305; community settlements, 324. Morgan, Daniel, commands Virginians at Cam bridge, 445; military ability, 466; service with Greene, 502; battle of the Cowpens, 503. Morris, Gouvemeur, mixed ancestry, 532; devises decimal system of currency, 569; character, delegate in constitutional convention, 586, 587; nationalist leader, 589; opposes West, 599; Committee on Style, 600. Morris, Robert, committee on foreign alliances, 454; committee on finance, 462 ; head of finance department, 502; asks French loan, 515; typical merchant prince, 534; "big business" in politics, 539; resigns as superintendent of finances, 565; delegate in constitutional convention, 586, 587; nationalist leader, 589. Morrises, in New York, intermarriages, 284; na tionalist leaders, 589. Mosquito Coast, English colony, 41. Moultrie, William, defends Charleston, 448. Muhlenberg, Frederick, political positions, 532- 533; president Pennsylvania state convention, 532-533, 605. Muhlenberg, Heinnch, Lutheran leader in Penn sylvania, 305. Muscovy Company, chartered, 4. Mutinies, in the army, 465, 501. Nabobs, in Parliament, 401. Nantucket, patent to Duke of York, 155; whalers, 260. Narragansett planters, 266. Narragansett settlements, 117-ng. Narragansetts, Indian tribe, 123. Narvaez, explorer, 23. Nashville, founded, 497; route of first settlers, 543. Natchez, British trading post, 498; held by Spam, 528. Naturalization Act, British, 286. Naval stores, importance to England, 32, 33, 179; in South Carolina, 141; trade restricted, 235; bounties, 236; in North Carolina, 321. Navigation Act of 1651, 75; full account, 180. Navigation Act of 1660, 182. Navigation Act of 1696, 234. Navigation Acts, provisions, 80, 180; dependent on colonial governments, 170; influence for union of Scotland and England, 226; defied by Con gress, 451. See Acts of Trade. Navy, American, beginnings of, 467; contributions to victory, 467, 468; advantage of French alli ance, 491. Negroes, Spanish slavery, 22; in Virginia, 62, 77, 78; increase in southern colonies, 131, 135, 316- 318; in South Carolma, 141, 322; in New York, 160, 292; in New England, 266; negro plots in New York, 292; increase in the South, 316-317; few in piedmont, 318; negro insurrection in South Carolina, 322; three-fifths rule, 598. See Slavery, and Slave trade. Netherlands. See Dutch, and Holland. Neutral rights, dispute during Revolutionary War, 504. New Amsterdam, founded, 145; municipal govern ment, 148; attacked by the Indians, 150; named New York, 157. New England, pioneers, 87; explored by Smith, 87; Council for, 88. 94, 95, 97, 121; motives for col onization, 88; Plymouth founded, 93; great mi gration to Massachusetts, 98; physical features, iox; agriculture, iox, 102; land system, 101; INDEX XXIX community spirit, X02; industries, 102; com merce, 103, 138, 139, 151, 183, 236, 246-247, 261- 264, 536-538; town meeting, 106, 350; union of church and state, 107; Indians in, 123, 124, 128; summary of Puritan enterprise, 124; effect of English Civil War, 124; relations with French and Dutch, 125, 126; Confederation, 125-127; English government (Restoration) unfriendly, 127-128; emigrants from, 136, see New England ers; trade with North Carolina, 138, 139; trade with New Netherland, 151; salt for fisheries, 183; trade in tobacco, 183; friction with im perial collectors, 185; imperial control, 186-192; the "Greater New England," i87-i8g; under Andros, 189-192, 195; land system attacked, igo; Anglican Church, 192, 248, 250, 276; Revolution of 1688, 195; reorganization, 201-204; King William's War, 218, 219; Queen AnneTs War, 221-224; trade with West Indies, 235, 236,261; distilleries, 247; aided by English dis senters, 250; chapter on period 1690-1760, 257- 279; sectional individuality, 257; population, 258, 259; causes of slow growth, 258; expansion, 259; fisheries, main account, 260; shipbuilding, 260; trade, main account, 261-264; manufactures, 264, 538; currency problem, 264, 265; common political problems, 267; charters threatened, 268; churches in, 273-277, 351; separation of church and state, 276; 552; Great Awakening, 276; edu cation, 277; literature, 278; provincialism, 278; Scotch-Irish in, 291; racial character, 340; com mon law modified, 345; inheritance of land, 350; improvements in court procedure, 351; Anglo- Spanish War of 1739, 362; King George's War, 363-365; French and Indian War, 375; Re straining Act, 438; cooperation in opposing Gage, 442; volunteers at Cambridge, 445; troops in Saratoga campaign, 483; English population predominates, 532; conditions after the Revolu tion, 536-538; emancipation, 554; paper-money movement, 580. See names of colonies. New England Confederation, 125-127. New England Restraining Act, 438. New Englanders, special characteristics, 131; in South Carolina, 141; in New Netherland, 148, 151; in New Jersey, 163-165; westward move ment, 542. New France (Canada), beginnings, 207; war with Iroquois, 208; population, 209, 210; govern ment, 209; autocracy, 210; paternalism, 213, 214; influence of the church, 213; feudalism, 214; fur trade, 215; in French and Indian War, 375, 377, 382-386; taken by British, 385-386. See Canada. New Hampshire, proprietary government, 88; Puritan settlers, 117; absorbed by Massachu- setts; 117; separated from Massachusetts and reunited in New England, 187; separate royal provmce (1691), 203; King William's War, 218, 219; Queen Anne's War, 221; about 1690, 257; expansion northward, 259; government, 272; dispute with New York, 295; independent gov ernment, 449; state constitution, 462-463, 547- 551; claims Vermont, 496; ratifies federal Con stitution, 608. See New England, and Thirteen Colonies. New Haven, founded, 122; united with Connecti cut, 123; in New England Confederation, 126, 127; treaty with Stuyvesant, 151; profit from commerce, 259. New Jersey, beginnings, 162; boundaries, 162; dis puted government, 162; physical features, 163; early settlers, 163; East New Jersey and West New Jersey, 164-165; population, 165, 281; added to New England, 189; restored to pro prietors, 202; royal province, 204; rent riots, 283; landlords, 283; Germans in, 288; com merce, 294; manufactures, 294; boundary dis pute, 2g5; political connections with New York and Pennsylvania, 296; votes for independence, 454; state constitution, 462-463, 547-551; mil itary operations, 479-480, 492; trade through New York city, 538; judges annul act of legis lature, in Holmes v. Walton, 548; taxes Sandy Hook lighthouse, 571; delegates in constitutional convention, 587; in small-state group, 590; ratifies federal Constitution, 604. See Thirteen Colonies. New Jersey plan of constitution, 591; executive, 593; power of Congress over states, 594; in fluence on details, 600. "New Lights," in New England, 277; in Virginia, 533, New London, profit from commerce, 259. New Mexico, Spanish colony, 24. New Netherland, founded, 145; land tenure, 145; fur trade, 145, 146; population, 146; govern ment, 146-148; churches, 149; education, 149; Indians, 150; conquest of New Sweden, 151; English rivalry, 151; conquest by England, 152, 153- New Orleans, ceded to Spain, 386. New Plymouth, 94, 95. See Plymouth. New South, development, 318, 319. New Sweden, founded, 150; conquest, 151. New World, discovered and named, 20. New York, English colony, originally New Nether land, 153. r55; boundaries, 156; government, 157-159. 297,549-552; English institutions in troduced, 157-158; Duke'sLaws, 158; churches, 159. 248, 303-305; land tenure, 160, 283; aris tocracy, 160, 196, 297; slavery, 160, 292; com merce, 160, 247, 292; fur trade,_ 160-161, 293, 538; Governor Dongan, 161; imperialism in charter, 185; added to New England, 189; anti- Catholic spirit, 196, 352, 552; Leisler's revolt, ig6-xg8; separate royal province, 202; Queen Anne's War, 221-222; population, 281; ex pansion, 281-282; large land grants, 283; fu sion of Dutch and English, 284; German col onists, 287; Scotch Irish in, 291; flour exports, 292; boundary disputes, 295, 496, 529; strategic importance, 296; politics, 297; voters, 297; constitutional conflicts, 297-299; education, 306; language in 1750, 340; English sports, 342; local government, 350; laws against Catholics, 352; assembly is suspended by Parliament, 417; attitude toward Massachusetts in 1774, 432; attitude on independence, 454, 455; state con stitution, 462-403, 547-551; claims Vermont, 496, 529; held in part by British, 527; claim of Massachusetts to western New York, 529; yields claim to Northwest, 530; conditions after the Revolution, 538-539; duties on trade of New Jersey and Connecticut, 538, 571; landed inter est, 539; western New York settled by New Englanders, 542; state senate, 549; veto power in council of revision, 550; election of governor, 551; excludes Catholics from naturalization, 552; discriminatory duties, 571; Trespass Act, XXX INDEX 572-573; proposes federal convention, 584; del egates in constitutional convention, 587; ratifies federal Constitution, 608. See Thirteen Colonies. New York Bay, explored by Hudson, 144. New York city, originally New Amsterdam, 157; center of population, 28r, 282; commerce, 2g3, 538; society and houses, 294; Stamp Act Con gress, 408; tea ships, 427; loyalists, 440; harbor under British, 475, 477; taken by British, 479; British retain control, 493; after Yorktown, 508; during and after the Revolution, 538; Confed eration Congress at, 567; favors Constitution, 608. Newburg Addresses, 568. Newcastle, Duke of, colonial administrator, 230; prevents parliamentary duties on the colonies, 237; in King George's War, 364; policy in 1754, 371; politician, 379; resigns, 380; alliance with Pitt, 380; crowded out by Bute, 399: leader of "Old Whigs," 400. Newfoundland, fishing grounds, 24, 26, 103; visited by English, 26; Gilbert's colony, 35; Avalon colony, 42; Banks, visited by New England fishermen, 103; French in, 212; cession by France to Great Britain, 224; relations with Thirteen Colonies, 338; French fishing rights, 386; fisheries in peace negotiations of 1782, 520. Newport (R. I.), founded, 118; slave trade, 247; profit from commerce, 259; trade, 262, 263, 537; merchants, 263; liberal society, 279; taken by British, 480; attack planned in 1778, 493; evac uation, 493; French troops at, 506. Newport, Capt. Christopher, commands fleet to Virginia, 47; councilor, 51. Newspapers, Colonial, 254; New England, 278; middle colonies, 299, 300; in the South, 335; intercolonial interests, 339; German, 289, 341. Niagara, French post, 358, 368; unsuccessful ex pedition against, 373; taken by British, 384; British trading post, 498; held by British, 527. Nicholson, lieutenant-governor of New York, 196; retires, 197. NicoUs, Richard, becomes governor of New York, *52,_ 153; guarantees to Dutch, 156; adminis tration and character, 157-158; grants in New Jersey, 163. Nme-state rule, 562, 566. Nobility, no formal nobility in United States, 534. See Aristocracy. Noell, Martin, consulted on colonial policy, 181. Nombre de Dios, raided by Drake, 30. "Nonconsumption" agreement, enforcement, 439. Nonimportation, in opposition to Stamp Act, 409; in 1769, 421; in opposition to Townshend Acts, 422,423; in 1774, 435; enforcement, 439; loya list argument against, 441. Norfolk, chief town of Virginia, 323; attacked in 1776, 447; Jefferson's expectation, 540. North, Lord, character and ministry, 422-423, 472; "Conciliatory Proposition," 438; in power, 471, 472; resigns, 509; conference with Hartley, 512. North America, early colonies, 22-25; passage through, 32, 144. North Carolina, Spanish colony in, 23; Raleigh's colony, 35, 36; included in Virginia, 136; churches, 137, 139, 250, 232; pioneers, 138; character, 138-139; Cape Fear River colony, 139; friction with imperial collectors, 185; insurrections, 198, 313; before 1689, 311; be comes separate royal province, 314; growth of population, 314-315; slavery in, 317; Germans and Scotch-Irish in, 319; back country settled, 319; quitrent troubles, 320; products, 320, 321; governor's salary, 325; loyalists, 441; loyalists defeated in 1776, 447; state constitution, 462- 463, 547-551; Tennessee settlements, 497; battle of Kings Mountain, 500; military opera tions in 1781, 502-504; authority over Tenn essee, 529; interest in the West, 541; state senate, 549; state institution of higher learn ing, 555; in large-state group, 590; delays ratification of federal Constitution, 610. See Carolina, South, and Thirteen Colonies. Northampton (Mass.), Great Awakening, 276. Northern Neck, in Virginia, 81, 320. Northwest, state claims and cessions, 529, 530, 574. Northwest Territory, creation and government, 577-578. Norwich (Eng.), Separatists, 91. Nova Scotia, French colony, 25; patent to Sterling, 42; under Cromwell, 133; joined with Mass achusetts (1691), 203; ceded by France, 224; royal government, 240; English colonization, 367; no revolutionary spirit, 446. Oath of supremacy, 67. Oaths, question of, in Pennsylvania, 301-302. Oglethorpe, James, founds Georgia, 315; war with Spain, 362. Ohio, held in part by British, 527; Connecticuti Reserve, 530. Ohio Company, before the French and Indian War, 369. Ohio Company, formed by New England army offi cers, 576; plants settlement at Marietta, 578. Ohio River, C&oron's journey, 369. Ohio valley, English traders in, 357; claimed by French and by English, 359; in dispute between France and Great Britain, 368-371; in dispute between Pennsylvania and Virginia, 369, 389; pioneers, 542, 543- Old Dominion, 62-03. See Virginia. Old South, denned, 318. "Old Whigs," defined, 400; attitude toward Amer ica, 400; conciliatory proposals, 437; opposition ineffective, 471. Olive oil, hopes of, in Carolina, 138; in Virginia, 179. Orange County (N. Y.), Scotch-Irish, 291. Orangemen, bitterness against Catholics, 289. Ordinance of 1784, 576. Ordinance of 1787, 577-578, 579. Oriskany, battle, 483. Oswald, Richard^ negotiations with Franklin, 516; peace commissioner, 517; new commission, 517; signs treaty, 522. Oswego, English trading post established, 293, 368; taken by Montcalm, 379; British trading post, 498; held by British, 527; effect of British occupation, 538. Otis, James, opposes writs of assistance, 396; op poses Stamp Act, 406; questions power of Par liament, 396, 406; in Stamp Act Congress, 408. Oxford, University of, 13, 333, 334. Paine, Thomas, Common Sense, 450; cited, 2. Palatinate (Germany), suffering from war, 285; colonists in England and America, 287. Palatinate of Durham, 68. Panama, Spanish colony, 21; raided by Drake, 30. INDEX XXXI Paper money, regulated by British government, 237, 238, 239, 265, 405; differing views, 247, 272; in New England, 265; restricted by Parliament, 265, 405; issued by Congress and by states, 464, 569; movement after the Revolution, 580-581; the case of Trevett v. Weeden, 581. Paris, treaty (1763), 386, 429. Parish, in England, 8, 10; in Virginia, 60, 61, 82; American like English, 343. Parks, William, newspaper publisher, 335. Parliament, English, in 1606, 2, 6; sovereignty es tablished, 7, 194, 205, 228; governs church, 10; Long Parliament, 74; conflict with Charles I, 74, 97 ; right of taxation in Pennsylvania charter, 171; control of colonies, 180, 205, 234; British, 227; sovereignty established, 2 28; unrepre sentative character, 228, 470; not controlled by any fundamental law, 232; control of colonial legislatures, 234; legislature for the empire, 237; restricts paper money, 265, 405; proposed revo cation of colonial charters, 268; proposed taxa- ation of colonies, 298; absolute authority of, 349; reimburses colonies after French and In dian War, 390; powers questioned by Otis, 396, 406; under George III, 401; proposed American taxation, 403; authority denied by Bland, 408; by Stamp Act Congress, 408; debate on taxa tion and authority, 409-41 1 ; declares its author ity over colonies, 411; power to tax denied by Dickinson, 418; Tea Act of 1773; 426; changes government of Massachusetts, 428, 441; au thority denied in first Continental Congress, 434, 435; Chatham's views, 437; Jefferson's theory as to authority, 556. Parliamentary government established, 228. Parson's Cause, in Virginia, 394. Partisan warfare, in Revolution, 494. Pastorius, Francis Daniel, leader in Pennsylvania, 175- Paterson, proposes New Jersey plan in constitu tional convention, 591. Patroons, in New Netherland, 145, 149. Patuxent River, navigable, 48. Pauperism, in England, 5. Peckham, Sir George, cited, 2. Pemaquid, fort, 271. Penn, Sir William, father of William Penn, 166. Penn, William, proprietor New Jersey, 164; char acter and early life, 165-167; as a Quaker, 167, 168; defense of religious liberty, 168, 173; grant of Pennsylvania and Delaware, 168-169; con troversy with Maryland, 170; as proprietor of Pennsylvania, 170-171, 175, 176; holy experi ment, 171; land policy, 171-172, 284; constitu tional experiments, 172-173; Indian policy, 174; stays in Pennsylvania, 174, 176; promotes settlement of Pennsylvania, 174; trials, 176, 301; loses and regains Pennsylvania, 204; religious policy, 352; cited, 167, 172. Penn family, as landlords in Pennsylvania, 300-301. Pennsylvania, charter, 169, 170-171, 185-186; boundaries, 169, 295; controversy with Mary land, 169-170, 296; government, 170-171, 549-552; religious freedom, 173; population, 174-175, 281; churches, 175. 304-306; indus tries, 176, 294; friction with Penn, 176, 283; influence of imperialism on charter, 186; tem porarily a royal province, 204; trade, 247, 293; expansion, 281, 282; large-scale immigration, 284; Germans in, 288, 303, 305,341; Swiss in, 288, 305; influence of the German element, 288; Scotch-Irish in, 291, 303; slavery, 292; chief granary of the continent, 293; fur trade, 293; manufactures, 294; boundary disputes, 295, 369, 389, 529, 563; politics, 299-303; taxing of the proprietary estates, 301; laws disallowed, 301, 302; question of oaths, 301-302; question of mil itary service, 302; Quaker control, 302, 303; ed ucation, 306; common law modified, 345; local government, 350; claims upper Ohio, 369, 389; hinders Braddock, 373; French and Indian War, 375J opposes proprietary rule, 394; attitude toward Massachusetts in 1774, 432; radicals in 1774, 432; riflemen in army at Cambridge, 445; attitude on independence, 453, 454; state constitution, 462-463, 547-551; governor re placed by council, 463; settlements near Fort Pitt, 496; gains Wyoming valley, 529, 563; conditions after the Revolution, 539-540; on route to West, 542; one-house legislature, 549; no governor, 550; religious test for legislators, 552; emancipation act, 554; Wyoming valley dispute settled by arbitration, 563; paper money issued, 580; delegates in constitutional con vention, 586; in large-state group, 590; ratifies federal Constitution, 604-606. See Thirteen Colonies. Pennsylvania Gazette, Franklin's paper, 254. Pensacola, taken by Spain, 500. Pepperell, William, takes Louisburg, 364; knighted, 534- Pepys, Samuel, naval adviser, 134; cited, 166. Pequot War, 123. Persecution, theory of, 116. Personal liberty, protection of, 344. Perth Amboy, port of East New Jersey, 165; trade, 294. Peru, Spanish colony, 22. Petition of Right, 97. Philadelphia, founded, 176; Catholic church in, 252; center of population, 281, 282; main gate way of immigration, 284; commerce, 293; first among American cities, 294; society and houses, 294; manufactures, 294; tea ships, 427; radicals in 1774, 432; first Continental Congress, 433; loyalists, 440; taken by British, 481, 482; evac uated, 492; largest city in United States, popu lation, 532; mechanics in politics, 536; conditions after the Revolution, 539-S40; politi cal conditions, 539-540; Confederation Congress, 567; convention, 585-600, see Convention; favors federal Constitution, 604; state con vention, 605. Philip II, tyranny in Netherlands, 2, 14; relations with England, 14-15; wife, 14; controls Portu gal, 17. Philip V, 220. Philippines, Magellan in, 21; in Seven Years' War, 385, 386. Phillips, General, in Virginia, 507. Phillipse family, in New York, 160. Phips, Sir William, in King William's War, 219; governor of Massachusetts, 269. Pickawillany, British post, 369; broken up, 370. Pickens, guerrilla leader, 494. Pieces of eight, 264. Piedmont, colonization, 49, 318; characteristics, 323-325; in Virginia, opposes Constitution, 609. See Back country. XXX11 INDEX Pilgrims, in Holland, 92; found Plymouth, 92-95; influence, 95. Pinckney, Charles, of South Carolina, career, 329; member Confederation Congress, 566; delegate in constitutional convention, 587; influence on details, 600. Pinckney, Charles Cotesworth, delegate in con stitutional convention, 587. Pinckneys, typical American gentry, 534. Piracy, act of Parliament against, 237; broken up by Spotswood, 328. Piracy courts, 242. Pirates, in North Carolina, 139, 312; in Pennsyl vania, 176, 204; Newport, 262; in the Carolinas, 3x2. Piscataqua, shipyards, 261. Pitt, William, the elder, character, 380; ministry, 380; strategy, 381; appointments, 381, 382; appeal to the colonies, 381; plans for 1759, 383; for 1761, 385; resigns, 385, 399; uses navy to enforce Molasses Act, 391; American affection, 392; independence of Whig organization, 397; leader of Pittites, 400; declines office in 1765, 409; denies power of Parliament to tax America, 4x0; repeal of Stamp Act, 4x4; ministry with Grafton, 415; becomes Earl of Chatham, 415; out of power, 422; opposition ineffective, 471; last appeal for the empire, 491; cited, 410, 4x1. See Chatham. Pitt, William, the younger, attitude toward United States, 571-572. "Pittites," defined, 400; attitude toward America, 400. Pittsburgh, named, 383; on route to West, 542. Pizarro, conquest of Peru, 22. Plains of Abraham, battle, 384. Plantation colonies, commerce, 246. Plantations, in Virginia, 63, 64, 79, 319; in South Carolina, 141, 316, 319, 541; in Georgia, 316, 541; in tidewater, 3ig; products, 320. Planters, relations with English merchants, 246. Plymouth (Eng.), importance in 1606, 4. Plymouth (Mass.), founded, 93; business basis, 93, 94; fur trade, 94; government, 94; church or ganization, 95; influence, gs; in New England Confederation, 126, 127; merged in New Eng land, 189; separate government resumed, 195; united with Massachusetts, 203. Plymouth Company, for settling Virginia, 46, 47,87. Pompadour, Madame de, 379. Ponce de Leon, in Florida, 22. Pontiac, Indian chief, war, 390. Poor Richard's Almanac, Franklin's, 308. Pope, poet, influence on America, 254. Pope's line of demarcation, 20. Popham, Sir John, colonizer, 38, 45. Population, Colonial, 340, see also particular col onies; of United States, 531. Port Royal (Acadia), French colony, 25, 212; attacked by Argall, 216; taken by Phips, 219. Port Royal (S. C), French colony, 25. Port Royal (S. C), Scotch settlement, 143. Porto Bello, captured, 362. Porto Rico, Spanish colony, 21. Portsmouth (R. I.), founded, 117. Portsmouth (N. H.), profit from commerce, 259. Portugal, temporary union with Spain, 15, 17; American possessions, 21 ; trade in East, 32, 144; supported by England in South American bound ary dispute, 488. Post office, colonial, established by Parliament, 237. Post routes, colonial, 339* Potomac River, navigable, 48; proposal to connect with the Ohio, 541. Poverty, rare in United States, 535* Povey, Thomas, consulted on colonial policy, 181. Powhatan, Indian chief, 49, 50. Pownall, governor of Pennsylvania, 293, 375; cited, 293. Prerogative, royal, in England, 6, 7; in control of colonies, 238, 239; weakening, 241. Presbyterians, in Massachusetts, 114; in South Carolma, 142; in East New Jersey, 165; in American colonies, 251, 305, 306; organization, 251; in Ulster, 290; first American presbytery and synod, 306; in middle colonies, 305, 306; in Virginia, 330, 331, 332, 533; in Maryland, 332; in back country, 332, 336; education in the back country, 336; in West, 545; national or ganization, 553; in Pennsylvania, oppose Con stitution, 604. President, provisions in constitutional convention, 593. 5941 independent status, 593. Presquelsle, French fort, 370. Price, Richard, interest in American problems, 527. Prime minister, British, 229. Primogeniture, abolished in Virginia, 554. Princeton, battle, 480; Confederation Congress, 567- Princeton College and University, founded, 307; intellectual center of Scotch-Irish, 307 ; influence on New South, 336. Privateers, in Queen Anne's War, 222; relation to piracy, 262; in Revolution, 467, 491, 505; ad vantage of French alliance, 491. Privy Council, committees on colonial affairs, 185; control over colonial laws, 203, 238, 349; court of appeals from colonial courts, 203, 239, 349; powers, 228; judicial authority, 232; disallow ance of colonial laws, 238. Proclamation of 1763, 390; Shelburne's view, 415- 416. Proprietary provinces, Maryland, 69; in New England, 88; Carolina, 136-137; NewYork,i57; New Jersey, 162; Pennsylvania, 170-173; Brit ish policy on, r84-x86, 204, 240. Protective principle in acts of trade, 184. Protestant Association, Maryland, 199-200. Protestant Episcopal Church, in United States, 5331 national organization, 553. Protestant Reformation, 10, 11, 16. Protestants. See Dutch Protestants, Huguenots, Puritans, Presbyterians, etc. Providence, colony in the Caribbean, 41. Providence, settlement in Maryland, 72. Providence (R. I.), founded, 117; profit from com merce, 25g. Provincetown, Pilgrims at, 93. Proyincial congress, of Massachusetts, 432; in Virginia, 433; in colonies generally, gains power, 448. Prussia, War of the Austrian Succession, 363, 365; Seven Years' War, 374, 384; alliance with Great Britain, 374; favorable to American rebels, 469; armed neutrality, 504; commercial treaty with United States, 570. Public lands system, of United States, 575. See also Land. Puffendorf, read by Americans, 341. Pulaski, valuable service, 466. INDEX XXX1U Puritanism, denned, 89; doctrines, 89-90. Puritans, in England, 11, 12, 74- 89, 90, 96, 131; Dutch influence, 18; in Maryland, 65, 74, 75- 77; control England, under Cromwell, 74; doc trines, 89-90; kinds of, go; outlook in England in 1629, 96-97; oppose Laud, 96; intolerance, 96, 108, 116; found Massachusetts, 97-99; oligarchy in Massachusetts, 104-105; churches in Massa chusetts, 107-108; in Connecticut, 121; inNew Haven, 122; results of 50 years enterprise, 124; in New York, 159; in New Jersey, 163-165; offended by Andros, 192; weakening of the Puritan tradition in New England, 273; Con sociation, 275. See Congregationafists. Pym, John, colonizer, 41, 42. Quakers, doctrines, 115, 167, 168; persecuted in Massachusetts, 1x5; in Rhode Island, 120; in American colonies in general, 135, 250, 353; in North Carolina, 139, 332; in New Netherland, 149; control New Jersey, 164-165; persecu tion in England, 168; control of Pennsylvania, 168, 171, 173, 301-303; settlers in Penn sylvania, 175, 301-305; connection between American and English organizations, 250; in Boston, 273; in New England, 276; slave owners, 292, 305; antislavery, 292, 304-305; ques tion of oaths, 301-302; question of military service, 302; differences, 304; schools, 306; in Virginia, 330; in Maryland, 332; in Thirteen Colonies, radicalism, 353; in French and Indian War, 376; in the Revolution, 440. Quarter sessions, court in England, 8. Quartering Act of 1774, 429. Quartermaster-general, bad management, 465 Quary, Robert, cited, 246. Quebec, founded, 207; taken by English (1629), 208; renewed growth under French, 208; at tacked in King William's War, 219; threatened in Queen Anne's War, 222, 223; well placed for defense, 377; siege (1759), 383; taken, 384; attacked in 1775-1776, 447. Quebec, British province, 390; boundaries ex tended, 430. Quebec Act of 1774, 429-430. Queen Anne's War, 220-224. Quitrents, in Virginia, 63, 320, 325; in New Jersey, 164, 283; in Pennsylvania, 171, 283, 300, 301; under Andros, igo; in middle colonies, 283; in Maryland, North Carolina, and South Carolina, 320, 325- Radicals, in Massachusetts, 4 419-420, 431; in Virginia, 425, 432; in middle colonies, 432; in first Continental Congress, 434; propose independence, 449, 450; win Declaration of Independence, 453-455; in the United States, 579-582, 613. Radnor (Pa.), 175. , , , , Raleigh, Sir Walter, colonizer, 35-36, 40; death, 30- Randolph, Edmund, governor of Virginia, delegate in constitutional convention, 585; plan of Con stitution, 589; urges plural executive, 593 J favors adoption of Constitution, 608. Randolph, Edward, collector, 185; evidence against Massachusetts, 187; in government of New England, 189, 190; deposed, ig5- Randolph, Peyton, m first Continental Congress, 433. Randolphs, typical American gentry, 534- Rappahannock River, navigable, 48. Rawdon, Lord, campaign in South Carolina, 503- Rayneval, proposal concerning the West, 519, 528; cited, $16. Redemptioners, in Pennsylvania (Germans), 288. in United States, 535. See Indentured servants; Redwood, Abraham, Newport merchant, career, 264. Regicides, in New England, 127. Religion, in England, 10-12; in Thirteen Colonies, 351-354; m United States, 533, 545' See Church, Anglican, Roman Catholics, Puritanism, Re ligious toleration, etc. Religious intolerance, in Virginia, 65, 331; in Eng land, 96; in Massachusetts, 108, 113-116; in New York, 149, 303; in the colonies, 352; in the United States, 551, 552. Religious liberty, Penn's defense, 168, 173; in state constitutions, 550; in Virginia, 552; in Ordinance of 1787, 578. Religious tests, in states, 551. Religious toleration, in Maryland, 70, 73, 76; in Rhode Island, iig, 120; in Carolina, 137; in South Carolina, 142; in New Netherland, 149; in New York, 159, 303-304; in Pennsylvania, 173, 303-304; in Massachusetts, 273, 275-276; in New Hampshire, 273; in Connecticut, 275- 276; in Germany, 286; in middle colonies, 303-304; in Virginia, 330-332, 552; in Thirteen Colonies, 351-354; in Canada, 42g; in states, 550; in Ordinance of 1787, 578. Rembrandt, Dutch painter, 17. Renaissance, 13. Rensselaer, Killian Van, patroon, 145- Representation, new theory, 348-349; theory of Stamp Act Congress, 408; theo^ of Mansfield, 410; theory of Pitt, 410; in Congress of Con federation, 559; in Congress of the Constitution, 591-592, 598. Representative government, established m Vir ginia, 57; in Maryland, 72; _ in Plymouth, 95; m Massachusetts, 104, 203; in North Carolina, 138; in South Carolina, 142; in New Nether land, 147-148; in New York, 157, 158-159; in New Jersey, 163; in Pennsylvania, 172-173; subverted by imperialism, 187, 189; reestab lished by William and Mary, 200; in the South, 326; American and English compared, 342, 343, 348, 349; in Canada, 429. Republican ideals, in state constitutions, 548. Requisition system, under Confederation Congress, 568-569. Restoration, 77, 131-135; colomal policy, 135, 181- 185. Restoration era, characteristics, 131-135. Revenge, Grenville's ship, 35- Revolution of 1688, 7; main account, 192; re sults in England, 193-194; in America, 194-200; colonial policy of new government, 200-204; sig nificance in American history, 205. Revolution of 1775-1783, eve of (proximate causes), 414-435; revolutionary government de veloped, 435; proposals of Burke and Chatham, 437; fighting begun, 438, 441-442; the American cause in 1775, 443; British preparations, 444; attitude of other British colonies, 446; drift toward independence, 448-452; resolution of May, 1776, 452; Declaration of Independ ence, 453-456; real cause, 456: an American civil war, 456; the opposing forces, 459-473; XXXIV INDEX naval forces and land forces, 459; America poorly organized, 460-463; economic problems 463 ; finances, 464; management of the Ameri can army and navy, 465-467; reasons for Ameri can victory, 467-473; geographic factors, 468; European factors, 468-473; operations on a small scale, 475; campaign of 1776, 475-479! of 1777, 480-484: attitude of France and Spain, 485-491; campaign of 1778, 492-493; of 1779, 493; of 1780, 494; partisan warfare, 494; lu- dians in, 497-498; war in the West, 498-500; war in the South, 500, 502-504, 507-508; cam paign of 1781, 502-508; armed neutrality, 504; naval operations, 505, 508; treaties of peace, 517-524; hostilities ended, 523; effect on churches, 533, 553; adoption of state constitu tions, 547-551- Rhode Island, founded, 117-ng; parliamentary patent, 1x8; religious toleration, X19, 120, 352; charter of 1663, 119, 185; merged in New Eng land, 189; separate government resumed, 195; resumes charter, 203; paper money, 265, 581; slaves, 266; self-government, 267; charter threatened (1701), 268; education, 278; Dean Berkeley's visit, 278; the Gaspee affair, 423- 424; independent government, 449; state con stitution, 462, 463; absence of class barriers, 535; rural population predominant, 538; ex tent of power as colony, 556; defeats amendment of Articles of Confederation, 569; delays rati fication of federal Constitution, 610. See New England and Thirteen Colonies. Rice, trade restricted, 235, 236; in South Carolina, 246, 317, 320, 321; in list of enumerated articles, 321. Richelieu, French statesman, 16; crushes Hugue nots, g6; colonizer, 207. Richelieu River, military colony, 214. Rights of Englishmen, 7, 46; claimed by colonists, 46, 344- Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved, pamphlet by Otis, 406. Rights of the colonists, 46, 234, 344. Roads, colonial, 325, 339. Roanoke colony, 36. Roberval, plants colony, 25. Robinson, John, character, 91; in Leyden, 92. Rochambeau, Count, at Newport, 506; at York- town, 507, 508; cited, 506. Rockingham, Marquis of, leader of "Old Whigs," 400; ministry, 409, 411, 415; opposition ineffec tive, 471; again minister in 1782, 5og; death, 5i7. Rockingham ministry, 409; policy as to Stamp Act, 4x1; fall, 415. Rodney, Admiral, operations in Revolutionary War, 505; victory in West Indies in 1782, 510. Roman Catholics, in England, 10, 11, 12", 69; ex cluded from Virginia, 56; in Maryland, 69, 70, 73. 332; in New York, 159, 196, 303; in Penn sylvania, 173; under James II, 192; after Rev- volution of 1688, 194; suspicion in New York, 196; in Ireland, 227, 289; m American colonies, 251-252, 352, 353; organization, 252; persecu tion in New York, 303; discrimination against in Pennsylvania, 304; persecuted in Thirteen Colonies, 352; in Thirteen Colonies, conserva tism, 353; in Canada, 429-430; excluded from office in United States, 533, 552; American organization after Revolution, 553. Royal African Company, chartered, 78, 135; share of slave trade, 233. Royal province, government, 59; in the eighteenth century, 239-242. See Colonial government. Royal Society, founded, 132; American members, 253. Rum, made in New England, 247, 264; in slave trade, 262. Rupert, Prince, interest in trade, 134. Russia, in seventeenth century, 17; in Seven Years' War, 374, 384; United States compared with, 530. Rutgers v. Waddington, cited, 572. Rutledge, Edward, in first Continental Congress, 434; war office, 445; opinion of the Shays re bellion, 582. Rutledge, John, president of South Carolina, de fends Charleston, 448; delegate in constitu tional convention, 587. Rutledges, hope for reconciliation, 450. Ryswick, peace of, 219. Sabbath, Puritan, 90, 108. St. Augustine, founded, 24; broken up by Drake, 30; ravaged by English, 222; attacked by Eng lish, 362. St. Christopher, English colony, 40; ceded by France, 224. St. Croix, French colony, 25. St. Eustatius, taken by British, 50s; lost by British, 509. St. Johns River, French colony on, 24. St. Lawrence, explored, 25. St. Leger, Colonel, in Mohawk valley, 482, 483. St. Lusson, takes possession of Great Lakes region, 210. St. Marys, settled, 70, 71. St. Pierre, retained by France, 386. Salem (Mass.), founded, 98; profit from commerce, 259, 263; witchcraft, 274; foreign trade, 537. Salem (N. J.), settled, 164. Salisbury, Earl of, in Virginia Company, 55. Saltonstall, Sir Richard, colonizer, gg. Salzburg, colonists from, 315. Sandwich, Lord, in charge of British navy, 472. Sandy Hook lighthouse, 571. Sandys, Sir Edwin, colonizer, 38, 54; influence on Virginia, 54, 58; friendly to Puritans, 91, 93. San Miguel, colony, 23. Santo Domingo, taken by Drake, 30. Saratoga, fort abandoned (1747), 368; campaign, cause of British failure, 469; Burgoyne's sur render, 484; effect on diplomacy, 486, 490. Sauer, Christopher, printer, 295. Sault Ste. Mane, St. Lusson at, 210. Saunders, Admiral, capture of Quebec, 383-384. Savannah, taken in 1778, 493; attempt to retake, 493; held by British after Yorktown, 508. Saybrook, founded, 121. Schenectady, massacre. 218. Schlatter, Rev. Michael, leader of the German Reformed Church, 305. Schoharie valley, settled, 282. Schools, in England, 13; in Massachusetts, 109. See Education. Schooner, devised, 260. Schuyler, Peter, aristocratic leader, iq6; opposes Leisler, 197; influence over Iroquois, 218. Schuyler, Gen. Philip, attacks loyalists, 482; in command against Burgoyne, 483-484. INDEX XXXV Schuylers, family in New York, 161; inter marriages, 284. Scotch, in Virginia, 77; in American colonies generally, 135, 251, 341; in South Carolina, 142, 143, 318; in East New Jersey, 165; "factors" in America, 246; in Newport, 263 j in Ulster, 289; in New York city, 294; frontier loyalists, 497. See Scotch-Irish. Scotch seamen, counted as English, 182. Scotch-Irish, oppression in Ireland, 227, 290; immigration, effect on church, 251; colonists in Maine, 258; in Massachusetts, 258; in New Hampshire, 258; in Pennsylvania, 282, 291,303,604; defined, 289; in Ulster, 289-290; religious grievances, 290; motives for emigra tion 290; in New England and New York, 291; buffer communities, 291; occupy land without legal title, 291, 292; aggressiveness in Pennsylvania, 303; Presbyterians, 305, 306; in tellectual center at Princeton, 307; in Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, and South Carolina, 319, 6og; in Thirteen Colonies, 341; frontier Whigs, 497; immigrants in United States, 532; characteristics, 532; in West, 545; oppose the federal Constitution, 604, 6og; favor Con stitution, 6og. Scotland, relation to England, 2, 182, 226; Scotch ships foreign, 182 ; influence on southern Presbyterians, _ 333; influence on American practices and ideals, 348. Scrooby congregation, 91. Sea power, of England, founded, 15; importance in British foreign policy, 359, 360; in the Seven Years' War, 374, 383, 385; in Revolu tion, 467, 473- Secretaries of state, British, 229. Secretary of state for the colonies, new office, * 4J6. Sectionalism, in Virginia, 82; in the_ colonies, 257; in the South, 319, 329; in politics, 329; in United States, 536; in the constitutional con vention, 598. SSgur, French writer, cited, 535- Seigneurs, in New France, 214; military leaders, 218. Selectmen, in Massachusetts, 106. Self-government, of colonies, 43, 109, 348, 556; after the Revolution of 1688, 195-200; in Connecticut and Rhode Island, 267-268, 556. Senate, representation in, 592. _ Separation of powers, in Virginia, 60; in state constitutions, 549-55*- Separatists, in England, 12, 89-go; defined, 8g; in Holland, 92. See Pilgrims. Serapis, capture, 467. Seven Years' War, 374-386. Sewall, Samuel, typical Puritan, 253. Shaftesbury, Earl of. See Ashley. Shakespeare, popularity, 13; neglected in America, 341. Sharp, Granville, antislavery leader, 554. Sharpe, Horatio, governor of Maryland, 370. iShays rebellion, 581. Shelburne, Earl of, leader of "Pittites," 400; problems of the West, 415-416; out of power, 422; in ministry of 1782^ 510; colonial sec retary, correspondence with Franklin, 512- 513; character, attitude in peace negotiations, 516; prime minister, 517; negotiations for West, 519; resigns, 523- Shenandoah valley, trade with Baltimore and Philadelphia, 325; Germans in, 341. See Great Valley_ of Virginia. Sheriff, in England, 8; in Virginia, 60; in Massa chusetts, 106; American like English, 343. Sherman, Roger, in first Continental Congress, 434; war office, 445; committee on Declara tion of Independence, 453; member Confeder ation Congress, 566; poUtical career, delegate in constitutional convention, 586; cited, 592. Shipbuilding, in New England, 103, 260, 261, 264; in New York, 160, 293; in Pennsylvania, 176, 293. Ships, provisions of Navigation Act, 182. Shirley, William, governor of Massachusetts, in King George's War, 364, 365; character, 370, 375; in French and Indian War, 373; favors parliamentary tax, 376. Sidney, Algernon, philosopher, 132; influence on Americans, 255, 342. Silesia, seized by Prussia, 363. Silk, in Virginia, 57, 64, 78, 179; in Carolina, 138. Silver, from Spanish America, 22; English search for, 32. Slaughter, governor of New York, 198. Slave trade, English, 27, 78; interest of royal family, 134; why favored, 135; Dutch rivalry, 152; French, 208; British 223, 233, 316; New England, 247, 262; Newport, 262; Captain Lindsay's voyage, 262; importation of slaves prohibited by Virginia and Maryland, 533; movement for suppressing, 597-598. Slavery, in Spanish colonies, 22; development in Virginia, 78; in South Carolina, 141; in New York, 160, 292; in West New Jersey, 165; in New England, 266; in Pennsylvania, 202; in Georgia, 316; responsibility for, 316; in crease in the South, 316-317; conditions in the South, 322; status in United States after Revolution, 533; prohibited in Ordinance of 1787, 578; in the Constitution, 5g8. Smilie, John, Anti-Federalist leader in Pennsyl vania, 605. Smith, Adam, Wealth of Nations, influence, 570. Smith, Capt. John, in Virginia, 52; explores New England, 87; cited, 48, 49, 50. Smith, Sir Thomas, colonizer, 38, 45, 52; charac ter, 52-54; influence on Virginia, 52, 54, 55, 58; portrait, 53. Smith, _ William, historian, _ on toleration, 304. Smuggling, 243; Liberty seized, 419; tea, 423. Social scale in 1606, 3. See Classes. Society for Propagating the Gospel in Foreign Parts, 249; work in New England, 250; work in middle colonies, 250, 304; work in Caro linas, 250, 330. Society of Friends, 115. See Quakers. South, colonies in 1660, 130; fur trade, 215; in Queen Anne's War, 222; chapter on period 1689-1760, 311-336; political readjustment, 312; growth of population, 314; _ development of negro slavery, 316-317; colonization of the uplands, 318; immigrants from the North, 318; sectionalism, 319, 329; few towns, 322-323; voters, 327; churches, 330-333; education, 333- 335; intellectual centers, 335; newspapers, 335; Revolutionary War, 500, 502-504, 507-508; after the Revolution, 540, 541; opposes Jay's Spanish policy, 574- See names of colonies. South America, colonized, 20-22. XXXVI INDEX South Carolina, French colony in, 25; English colony, founded, 140-143 ; population, 141 , 314-315; plantation system, 141; products and trade, 141; churches, 142, 248, 250, 313, 332; opposed by Spain, 143; Queen Anne's War, 222; rice, 246, 317, 320, 321; uprising of 1719, 312-314; Church Acts of 17041 S^3i election law of 1716, 314; becomes separate royal province, 314; growth of population, 314-315; slavery in, 317, 322; Germans and Scotch-Irish in, 319; quitrent troubles, 320; im portance of Charleston, 323; governor curbed, 326; councU, 326; education abroad, 334; schools, 334; similarity to Barbados, 339; loyal ists in, 441; loyalists defeated in 1776, 447; independent government, 449; attitude on independence, 454; state constitution, 462-463, 547-551; in Revolutionary War, 494, 502-504; yields claim to Western lands, 530; conditions after the Revolution, 541; opinion as to slavery, 541; delegates in Constitutional Convention, 587; in large-state group, 590; favors slave trade, 598; ratifies federal Constitution, 607. See Carolina, South, and Thirteen Colonies. South Carolina Gazette, newspaper founded, 335. Southern secessionists of 1861, organization, 461. Sovereignty, See States.^ Spain, power, 14; relations with England, 14-15, 27, 30, 133, 220-224, 361; and the New World, 20; colonies, 21-24; treatment of Indians, 22; exclusive trade policy, 27; opposes Virginia, 45, 56; opposes South Carolina, 143; Spanish succession, 219-220; alliance with France, 220-223; Queen Anne's War, 221-224; rela tions with Great Britain, 361, 374, 385, 469, 488, 500, 522; results of the War of the Spanish Succession, 361; grievances against England, 361; the Family Compact, 362; Anglo-Spanish War of 1739, 362; alliance with France (1761), 385; results of Seven Years' War, 386; loans and aid to United States, 464, 469, 4S5; policy in 1777, 488; relations with United States, 489, 515, 573; question of free navigation of the Mississippi, 489-490; enters war as an ally of France, 490; activities in the Southwest, 499; war with Great Britain (i779)> 5oo; attitude to ward United States, 515; claims in West, 518- 519; regains Floridas, 520, 522; treaty of peace with Great Britain (1783), 522. Spanish Netherlands, attacked by Louis XIV, 216, 220. Spanish Succession, War of the, 220, 361. Speakership question, in Massachusetts, 271. Spectator essays, influence on America, 254. S. P. G., denned, 249- Spotswood, Alexander, governor of Virginia, career, 327-328; cited, 327. Springfield (Mass.) founded, 121. Stamp Act, passed, 404-405; opposition, 406; Stamp Act Congress, 408; appeal to force, 408; repealed, 411, 414. Stamp Act Congress, 408. Staple Act of 1663, 182, 183. Star Chamber, court in England, 7- Stark, Capt. John, battle of Bennington, 483. State rights, basis of New England confedera tion, 126. See States. Staten Island, Dutch settlers, 146; British troops on, 459, 478. States, declaration of Congress, 459; grudging attitude toward Congress, 461; poor organiza tion, 462* character of the new constitutions, 463; taxing power, paper money, 464; militia, character, 465; claims to western lands, 52g, 53o;_ constitution making, 547-551; suffrage qualifications, 548; veto power, 550; religious tests, 551; encouragement of education, 554; sovereignty under Continental Congress, 558; sovereignty under Confederation, 561; violate treaties, 572-573; provision for new states in Ordinance of 1787, 578; sovereignty under the Constitution, 612. States-General, of Netherlands, 144. Staves, in trade of New England, 261. Stay laws, demanded by debtor class, 580. Steele, Richard, essayist, friend of Joseph Dudley, 253; Spectator essays, influence on America, 254. Steuben, inspector-general, 466, 4g2; valuable service, 466. Stillwater, battle, 484. Stirling, Earl of, colonizer, 42. Stone, governor of Maryland, 76, 77. Stormont, Lord, ambassador in Paris, 487. Strafford, Earl of, supports autocratic rule, 97. Stuart, superintendent of Indian affairs in the South, 444; loyalist influence, 4g7. Stuarts, royal family, 133. See Charles I, Charles II, James I, James II. Stuyvesant, Peter, governor of New Netherland, 147; autocratic government, 148; church policy, 149; opposes Swedes and English, 151, 152. "Suffolk Resolves" of 1774, 431; approved by Congress, 434. Suffrage, in Massachusetts, 103, 104, 274; in Connecticut and Rhode Island, 267; in New York, 297; in the South, 327; in Thirteen Colonies, 348; in the states, 548; for federal elections, 599. Sugar, in English West Indies, 40; trade regu lated, 182, 183; duty, 235, 403, 404. Sugar Act of 1764, 403, 404; effects of, 405-406. Sumter, guerrilla leader, 494. Supreme law, and its enforcement, 594-595. Surinam, English colony 41. Susquehanna River, navigable, 48. Susquehanna valley, early settlers, 282; Scotch- Irish in, 291; Connecticut settlers in Wyoming Valley, 295, 542. Susquehannocks, Indian tribe, 49, 70. Sweden, in seventeenth century, 17; alliance of 1668, 216. Swedes, in New Sweden, 150-151; in New Jersey, 163; in Pennsylvania and Delaware, 174. Swiss colonists, motives for emigration, 285; in North Carolina, 287, 317; in Pennsylvania, 288, 305; churches, 305; in South Carolina, 318. Switzerland, in seventeenth and eighteenth cen turies, 285; emigration, 286. Talon, Jean, intendant of New France, 210. Tangiers, acquired by Charles II, 134. Tarleton, Colonel, guerrilla leader, 494; # battle of the Cowpens, 503; campaign in Virginia, 507. Taxation, in Virginia, 59, 60; in charter of Penn sylvania, 171; in the colonies, 237* 343; argu ments for tax by Parliament, 403, 404; Sugar Act, 404; Stamp Act, 404-412; issue unsettled, 414; Townshend Duty Act, 417; taxing power given to Congress, 596. INDEX XXX vu Taxation No Tyranny, Johnson's tract, 470. Taxation without representation, under Andros, 191; argument against Stamp Act, 408. Tea, trade, 388; tax, 417; _ retained, 423; Act of 1773, 426; colonial resistance, 426; Boston Tea Party, 427. Tenants, in England in x6o6, 5; in middle colonies, 283. See Land tenure. "Tender" laws, demanded by debtor class, 580. Tenison, Thomas, head of S. P. G., 250. Tennessee, De Soto in, 23; early settlements, 497, 543; Indian raids, 498; frontiersmen in battle of Kings Mountain, 500; proposed state of Franklin, 529. Tennessee River, route to West, 543 • Tennyson, cited, 35. Territorial government, genesis of, 576-578. Territories on the Delaware, 169, 170. See Delaware. Texas, Spanish missionaries in, 24. Theater, first in America, 335. Thirteen Colonies, control and influence by England, 229-255; common interests, 339; conflict with insular interests, 340; population, 340; race and language, 340-341; govern ment, 342-350; law, 344-347; churches, 351- 3541 in French and Indian War, 375, 377, 382, 390, 392; plans for intercolonial union, 376; reimbursed, 391; growth, 391; self-con fidence, 392; friction with British government, 393-397, 402-408; eve of Revolution, 414-435; breakdown of provincial governments, 448- 449; # distribution of powers between colonial and imperial governments, 556. See Revolu tion, and names of colonies. Thirty Years' War, 16; effects on colonization, 17, 151, 174, 285; destructiveness, 285. Ticonderoga, battle (17S8), 382; abandoned by French, 384; taken by Allen, 446; taken by British in 1777, 483. Tidewater region, physical features, 48, 49; dominated by English, 318: characteristics, 319-323; products, 320; labor system, 321; Anglican Church, 332; in Virginia, favors Constitution, 609. Timber trade restricted, 235. Tithes, in England, 10. Titles of nobility, in Carolina, 137; condemned in state constitutions, 534. Tobacco, cultivated by Indians, 50; in Virginia, 57, 64, 78, 540; the plantation system, 64, 320; production in England prohibited, 64; trade regulated, 64, 81, 180, 182, 183; in Maryland, 72; in North Carolina, 138; extent of trade (1706), 246; planters' # difficulties, 320; used as money, 394; conditions of trade after the Revolution, 540. Toleration. See Religious toleration. Toleration Act, Maryland, 76, 77. Toleration Act of 16S9 in England, 194, 205. Tories, in America, 434, 440. See Loyalists. Tory party, in Great Britain, discredited by Jacobites, 398; in reign of George HI, 401. Town meeting, in New England, 106, 267; powers, 106, 350; under Andros, 191: restricted by Massachusetts Government Act, 428. Towns, New England, 102; few in the South, 323. Townshend, Charles, character and policy, 416; Townshend Acts, 417- Townshend Acts, 417; American opposition, 418-422; duties abandoned, 423. Township system of public land surveys, 575. Trans-Allegheny country, 518. See West. Transatlantic travel in seventeenth century, 47; communications in the eighteenth century, 242. Transportation, seventeenth-century ocean vessels, 47; rivers in Virginia, 48; in Pennsylvania, 293; in the South, 324-325, colonial roads, 325,339; slowness, 536; proposed canals, 541; western pioneers, 542-543. Transylvania, colony, 4g6. Treasurer, colonial, 241. Treasurer, provincial, 241 ; in New York, 298; in Pennsylvania, 300; in Virginia, 326. Treasury Board, British, 229, 232. Treasury department, with single head, 502. Treaties, Westphalia, 151, 286; Breda, 153 ; Ryswick, 219; Utrecht, 223-224; Aix-la-Cha pelle, 365; Paris (1763), 386; Fort Stanwix, 416, 429; treaty of 1782, 512-522; treaty of Paris; 1783, 524; commercial treaties, 570; treaties violated by states, 572-573; enforcement of treaties, 594-595. Trenton, battle, 479-480; Confederation Congress at, 567. Trespass Act, in New York, 572-573. Trevett v. Weeden, cited, 581. Trial by jury, in colonies, 347; in Ordinance of 1787, 578. Trial in England of colonists who had committed crimes, proposed, 421, 425. Triple Alliance of 1668, 216. Tryon, governor of New York, opposes Revolu tion, 448. Tudor kings, 6, 14. Turgot, minister of Louis XVI, 486; on Ameri can independence, 526; on American problem of government, 526; cited, 526. Turkey Company, chartered, 4. Turner, cited, 357. Tuscaroras, war, 313. Ulster, settled by Scotchmen and Englishmen, 2; colonists from, 289; colonists in, 289; econ omic grievances, 2go; influence on southern Presbyterians, 333; assistance to America, 469- Ulster County, N. Y., Scotch-Irish, 291. Uncas, Mohegan chieftain, 126. Unconstitutional legislation, and the courts, 547; controlled by judges, 595- Union, Albany Plan, 376; Galloway plan, 434; development of, 555-563. Unitarian movement, in New England, 277. United Colonies of New England, 126. United Kingdom of Great Britain, created, 226. United States, Declaration of Independence, 455; financing the Revolution, 464; alliance with France, 490, 491; peace negotiations, 512-524; attitude toward Spain, 515; independ ence conceded, 517; territorial^ boundaries, 517-520; fisheries, 520; preliminary treaty of 1782, 522; treaty of 1783, 524; doubtful prospects, 526-527; British posts, 527; Spanish claims, 527; Indians^ in West, 528; inter state boundary questions, 529; physical re sources, 530; population, 531; distribution, 531-532; racial elements, 532; churches, 533, 545; social distinctions, 534-535; sectionalism, XXXV111 INDEX 536; commercial problems, 536; internal im provements, 541; development of federal union, 555-563; powers of the Continental Congress, 558; federal problems, 1783-1787, 565-582; beginnings of colonial policy, 574-579; move ment for a more effective union, 579-582; eco nomic and social discontent, 579-581; economic grievances, 580; nature of union, 612. See Revolution, Congress, Constitution, etc. Universities, in England, 13. University of Pennsylvania, founded by Franklin, 307. University of Virginia, inspired by Jefferson, 555. Usselinx, Willem, colonizer, 150. Utrecht, treaty of, 223-224. Valley Forge, cause of sufferings, 465; American army at, 484. Van Cortlandt, Stephen, aristocratic leader, 196. Van Cortlandt family, in New York, 160. Vane, Henry, governor of Massachusetts, 1x4. Van Rensselaer, Killian, patroon, 145. Van Rensselaers, in New York, intermarriages, 284. Vaudreuil, governor of New France, 378, 384. Vera Cruz, Captain Hawkins at, 27. Vergennes, Count of, policy toward United States, 486, 487, 488; negotiation with Frank- Ihij 489; alliance with United States, 490; opinion of Adams, 513; attitude in peace nego tiations, 515; opinion of Oswald's commission, 517; attitude on claims to West, 518-519; com munication to Congress, 523; pacified by Frank lin, 523. Vermont, first settlements, 259; taking of Ticon- deroga and Crown Point, 446; becomes a state, 496; claimed by New York, 496, 529; Whigs in, 497; settled by New Englanders, 542; population, 542. Vernon, Adrniral, takes Porto Bello, 362. Verrazano, explorer, 24. Vespucius, Americus, explorer, 20. Vestry, Virginia, 60. Vetch, Samuel, in Queen Anne's War, 222. Veto power, of provincial governor, 238; in state constitutions, 550; President's, 594. Vincennes, British trading post, 498; taken by Clark, 499. Virginia, Spanish claim, 22; name, 37; charter of 1606, 37, 45; opposition of Spain, 45; expedi tion of 1606, 47; instructions to colonists, 47, 51; physical features, 48, 49; Indians 49-52, 58, 62, 63, 82; Jamestown settlement, 51; near failure, 52, 56; population, 52, 56, 62, 77, 314, 315; charter of 1609, 54; of 1612, 55; churches, 56, 61, 77, 248, 330-332, 351, 533, 552; tobacco, 57, 64, 78, 79, 320, 540; first legis lature, 57; royal province, 50-61; social classes,"_62; servants, 62, 77; land system, 63; plantations, 63, 64, 79, 319; loyalists, 65, 74, 77; emigrants from, 65, 136, 138; opposes Lord Baltimore, 68; Commonwealth- government, 75; Restoration, 77; negro slavery, 77-78, 317, 322; early westward movement, 80; fur trade, 80, 215, 221; grievances, 80-82; Bacon's Rebellion, 82-84; conditions in 1688, 84-85; trade, 151, 180, 183, 246; friction with imperial collectors, 185; unrest in 1689, 198; Germans in, 288, 317, 319; securely established in 1700, 311; growth of population, 314-315; Scotch-Irish in, 319; large estates, 320; quitrent troubles, 320; gov ernor's power, 325; model imperial province, 325; council influential, 326; education abroad, 333,334; English sports, 342; local government much like English, 344, 350; similarity to Eng land, 354; claims upper Ohio 369, 389; Parson's Cause, 394; opposes Stamp Act, 406-408; Resolves of 1769, 421; friction before the Revolution, 425; radicals and conservatives, 425-426, 432; committee of correspondence, 425; Lord Dunmore's War, 439; revolutionary methods, 439; loyalists (Tories), 440-441; rifle men in the army at Cambridge, 445; in dependent government, 453; state constitu tion, 462, 463, 547-551; Kentucky county ,_ 497; Clark expedition, 4gg; county of Illinois, 4gg; military operations, 507-508; Ken tucky claims statehood, 529; claims North west, 529, 530; yields claim to Northwest, 53o, 574; prohibits importation of slaves, 534; conditions after the Revolution, 540; mterest in the West, 541; method of adopting state constitution, 547; suffrage qualifications, 548; apportionment, 549-551; no veto power, 55°; state governor, 551; complete religious liberty 552; primogeniture abolished, 554; public education, 555; cuscriminatory duties, 571; paper-money movement defeated, 580; con ference with Maryland, 585; Annapolis Con vention, 585; delegates in constitutional conven tion, 585; m large-state', group, 590; ratifies federal Constitution, 608-610. See South, and Thirteen Colonies. Virginia Company, members, 38, 39, 45, 55; aims and methods, 56; internal troubles, 58; fall, 59; relation to Pilgrims, 92, 94. Virginia Gazette, newspaper founded, 335. Virginia plan of constitution, 589; approved, 591; executive, 593; power of Congress over states, 594; influence on details, 600. Virginia Resolves, of 1769, 421. Voltaire, read by Americans, 341. "Volunteers," of Ireland, 469. Voyageurs, work for British, 498. Wachovia (N. C), founded, 321.. Wages, in United States, 536. Wall Street, compared with England, 247. Walloons, in New Netherlandj 145. Walpole, Sir Robert, prime minister, 229; against parliamentary duties on the colomes, 237; war with Spain, 362. War department, or War Office, organized by Congress, 461; with single head, 502; under Confederation, 565. War of the Austrian Succession, 363-365. War Office, organized by Congress, 461. Warren, Commodore, takes Louisburg, 364. Warwick (R. I.), founded, 118. Warwick, Robert Rich, Earl of, colonizer, 39, 41, 42; commissioner, 74; Council for New Eng land, 88. Washington, George, mission to Ohio country, 371; skirmish with French, 371; aide to Brad dock, 373; military rank, 377; reputation, 392; Virginia Resolves of 1769, 421; in first Continental Congress, 433; revolutionary ac tivity, 439; appointed commander in chief, 443; character, 443, 467, 534, 588; takes Boston, 445; favors independence, 449; oath of alle- INDEX XXXIX giance to the United States, 461; hampered by governmental weakness, 463-465 ; hampered y political interference, 467; contribution to victory, 467; tries to defend New York, 478- 479; battle of Long Island, 479; retreat across New Jersey, 479; Trenton and Princeton, 470-480; Chaos Ford and Germantown, 481; Valley Forge, 484; Conway Cabal, 485; battle of Monmouth, 492; expedition against Iroquois, 499; on weakness of government, 501; chooses Greene for southern command, 502; plans to attack New York, 506; York- town campaign, 507; "Farewell Orders," 526; warning as to federal government, 526; appre ciation of American economic resources, 531; typical country gentleman, 534; interest in canals, 541; conservative Western policy, 544; retirement at Mount Vernon, 566; pacifies army officers, 567-568; offer of kingship, 567; Newburg addresses, 568; approves annulment of Trespass Act, 573; opinion of the Shays rebellion, 582; favors revision of Articles of Confederation, 584; favors cooperation of Virginia and Maryland, 584; delegate in con stitutional convention, 585; public spirit, 588; president of the convention, 588; nationalist leader, 589; favors adoption of Constitution, 608; Federal leader, 610; first President of the United States, 610, 613; cited, 464, 484, 501, 526, 531. Watauga settlement, 497. Webster, Pelatiah, proposes new federal consti tution, 584. Wedderburn, Solicitor-General, attacks Franklin, 431. Weiser, Conrad, backwoods leader, 293. Welsh, in American colonies, 135; in Pennsyl vania, 175; in South Carolina, 318. Wentworth, Sir Thomas, supports autocratic rule, 97. Wesley, John, publishes tract against colonies, 470; leads to formation of Methodist Episcopal Church in United States, 553. West, French in, 212, 357-386; old and new dis tinguished, 357; struggle for, 357-386; loss of British prestige, 374; under British rule, 389; Shelburne's policy, 415-416; added to Quebec, 430; Mississippi question, 489, 519, 543, 573; frontier communities, 496-497; British in fluence, 498; in Revolution, 498-500; in peace negotiations, 518-519; occupation delayed by British and Spanish claims, 528; conflicting state claims, 529, 559; state cessions, 530; population, 531; conditions after the Revolu tion, 542-545; characteristics of the western settlers, 544-5455 religion, 545; provision in Articles of Confederation concerning state claims, 559; opposes Jay's Spanish policy, 574; land system, 575; genesis of territorial government, 576-578; colonization under federal protection, 579; proposed restrictions in Constitution, 599. West, Richard, cited on rights of Englishmen, 345. West Florida, British province, 390; taken by Spain, 500; secret agreement concerning bound ary, 520. West Indians, in Newport, 263. West Indies, Spanish colonization, 21; English colonies, 40; trade, 40, 235, 247, 261, 264, 403, 405, 537, 539, 57o; in 1660^ 130; French, 209; Queen Anne's War, 221; influence in Parlia ment, 228, 235, 340; relations with Thirteen Colonies, 338; favored colonies, 340; Molasses Act evaded, 391; trade affected by Sugar Act, 403, 405; no revolutionary spirit, 446; opera tions in Revolutionary War, 505, 509, 510; trade after the Revolution, 537, 539; American shipping excluded, 570. West New Jersey, 164, 165; reunited, 204. West Point, Arnold's plot, 501. West Virginia, colonized, 496; early settlements, 543- Westchester County, large land grants, 283. West-over estate of William Byrd, 320, 328, 335. Westphalia, peace of, effect on New Sweden, 151; religious settlement, 286. Westsylvania, proposed colony, 496. Wethersfield (Conn.), founded, 121. Whaling_ industry, 260; favored by Grenville, 402. Wheat, in Virginia, 49, 540; in New England, 101; in South Carolma, 141; in New York, 160; in Pennsylvania, 176; in middle colonies, 292, 293; in back country, 324; in Illinois country, 358. Whig party in England, decides against American bishops, 249; in power under George I and George II, 379, 397; principles, 397; factional contests, 398, 390-400. "Whigs," American, in Virginia and the Con tinental Congress, 433; attitude toward Chat ham's proposal, 438; in Massachusetts, 441- 442; appeal to Canadians, 446; victory at Moores Creek Bridge, 447; moderate Whigs, 450, 451; theory of governmental authority, 451; on the frontier, 497; attitude toward loyalists, 521. White, Father, in Maryland, 70. White, John, at Roanoke, 36. White Plains, American army at, 479. Whitefield, George, Great Awakening, 252; main account, 276, 277. Whitehill, Robert, Anti -Federalist leader in Penn sylvania, 605. Wilkinson and Ayrault, in slave trade, 262. William III, accession, 194; colonial policy, 200- 203; opposes France, 216, 217 ; controls Ireland, 217; Spanish succession, 220; power as King, 227; supported by Scotch-Irish Orangemen, 289. William and Mary College, founded, character, 333; at Williamsburg, 335; Jefferson's plan, 555. William the Silent, Dutch leader, 18. _ Williams, Roger, views, 112; banished, 113; founds Providence, 117; secures patent, 118; policy toward Quakers, 120; religious policy, 325. Williamsburg, capital of Virginia, 323; intellectual center, 335. Willoughby, Lord, colonizer, 41. Wills Creek, trading post, Washington at, 371. Wilmington (Del.), Swedish fort, 150. Wilmington (N. C). settled, 315; capital, 323; British base, 503- Wilson, James, War Office, 445; hopes for recon ciliation, 450; opposes proposal for independent governments, 452; delegate in constitutional convention, 586, 587; nationalist leader, s8g; opposes compromise on representation, 592; favors West, 599; Federal leader, 605; inter pretation of the Constitution, 612. Windsor (Conn.), founded, 121. xl INDEX Wine, in Virginia, 57, 179; in Carolma, 138. Winthrop, John, governor, voyage to Massa chusetts, 47, gS; character, 99; president of New England Confederation, 126; cited, 113. Winthrop, John, Jr., founds Saybrook, 121; gov ernor of Connecticut, secures charter, 123. Winthrop, John, professor in Harvard, 278. Winthrop v. Lechmere, cited, 350. Wisconsin, held in part by British, 527. Wise, John, opposes Andros taxation, 191; on democracy, 275; opposes absolutism, 344; cited, 344. Witchcraft, Salem, 274. Wolfe, James, takes Louisburg, 381, 382; capture of Quebec, 383-384; death, 384; impatience with militia, 393. Women, in Virginia, 57; Anne Hutchinson in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, 113, 114, . 117, 118; girls educated in England, 253; ladies in New England, 266; schools in the South, 334. Wood, Capt. Abraham, explorer, 80. Woolen manufactures, in England, 4; in Ireland, 227, 290, 291; restricted in colonies, 236, 264. Woolens Act of 1699, 236, 264, 290. World War, use of economic resources, 464. Writs of assistance, in Massachusetts, 396; ap proved by Parliament, 417. Wyoming valley, settled by Connecticut col onists, 295, 542; massacre, 490; awarded tc Pennsylvania, 529; dispute settled by arbi tration, 563. Yale College, founded, 277; protest against Great Awakening, 277. Yates (of N. Y.), opposes Constitution, 608. Yemassees, war, 313. Yeomen, English social class, 3, 9. York, Duke of. See James II. York River, navigable, 48. Yorktown campaign, 507; effect on English opinion, 509. Zenger, John Peter, libel case, 299. Zenger case, 299; significance, 351. Zufliga, cited, 55. , rarer UNIVERSITY i95^600b