Charles Kendall Adams

117. Tendencies toward Separation.—From the first there were certain conditions that tended to force the American colonies away from the mother country. The colonists, especially those of New England, had very generally left Great Britain for the purpose of escaping oppression; and, after the new settlements were made, the conduct of the home government was not such as to diminish the sense of wrong. It was less than thirty years after the landing at Plymouth when the first of the “Navigation Acts” marked the beginning of a policy designed to encourage British at the expense of colonial commerce (§ 43), and in 1672 this unwise course of action was carried still further. A law was passed which imposed the same duties on trade between one colony and another as on trade between America and foreign countries; and to enforce this law, custom-houses were established along the border lines between the different colonies. This naturally led to a constant and a growing friction between the royal governors who had to collect the revenue, and the colonists who had to pay it. The seventy-five years immediately before the Seven Years’ War are full of instances of the unfriendly relations between the people and the agents of the home government^[57] (§94).

George III.

118. Influence of the Seven Years’ War.—These unfriendly relations were happily interrupted by the war which resulted in the fall of Quebec and the transfer of Canada from the French to the English. The fact that the Americans were united with the English in a common cause against a common enemy drew them nearer and nearer together. In the prosecution of the war the colonists bore a prominent and honorable part, and at its close they everywhere shared in the general rejoicing. In this spirit old Fort Duquesne was given the name Pittsburg, in honor of the great statesman who had accomplished so much for the continent; and the legislature of Massachusetts voted for Westminster Abbey an elaborate monument to Lord Howe, who had fallen at Ticonderoga. It is certain that a new spirit of loyalty and devotion to the mother country had sprung up, when in 1760, one year after the fall of Quebec, George III., then a young man of twenty-two, ascended the throne. He had a great opportunity to conciliate the colonists and to increase their growing affection; but he defiantly took the opposite course.

119. George III.^[58]—The young king brought to the throne a very unfortunate mixture of good and bad qualities. He had an unblemished character; he had a strong will and was very conscientious and industrious; but he was possessed with the idea that the power of the throne should be greatly strengthened, and that all opposition to such increase of power should be put down, if need be, by main force. His ambition was to restore to the Crown the power which it had unlawfully exercised before the two English revolutions had made it subordinate to Parliament. For the accomplishment of this purpose he committed the fatal blunder of pushing aside the great statesmen he found in office and of surrounding himself with ministers who would aid him in carrying out his own policy.

120. Independent Spirit among the Colonies.—Another peculiarity of the situation was the prevalence of a decided spirit of independence of one another among the individual colonies. No effort to bring them together for purposes of common action, even against the Indians, had been successful. Even Franklin’s plan in 1754 had failed to unite them (§ 110). On the contrary, they had drawn farther and farther apart, so that a very intelligent traveler, who had visited various parts of the country, wrote in 1760, “Were the colonies left to themselves, there would soon be civil war from one end of the continent to the other.” And James Otis, one of the foremost of American patriots, said in 1765, “Were the colonies left to themselves, to-morrow America would be a mere shambles of blood and confusion before the little petty states could be united.” When George III. ascended the throne, the colonies seemed more afraid of one another than they were of England, and more likely to drift into separate nationalities like those of Europe than they were to unite in a common effort to secure independence of the mother country.

THE QUESTION OF TAXATION.

121. Excuse for the Policy.—The energetic and fatal policy of the Crown first showed itself in a determination to impose additional taxes on the Americans. There was some excuse for this policy. The Seven Years’ War had been carried on at heavy expense, and a large debt had been the result. The king claimed that this burden, chiefly incurred in an effort to protect the American colonists, should be borne, in large part, by the colonists themselves. To this claim the colonists might not have objected, if they had themselves been allowed a voice in determining their share of the tax. But the English insisted upon determining it without colonial advice.

122. The British View of the Matter.—In the course of centuries the British people had come to recognize the principle, “No taxation without representation.” But in the time of George III. representation, even in England, was absurdly imperfect. Boroughs of not more than half a dozen voters sometimes sent two members to the British Parliament, while some large towns like Manchester and Birmingham sent no representatives. The people permitted this bad state of affairs to continue, because the doctrine was held that every member of Parliament, no matter by whom he was elected, represented all the people of the kingdom, and not merely those who had chosen him. According to this theory, the colonies were as much represented in Parliament as Manchester and Birmingham; and if those towns could be taxed without direct representation, there appeared no just reason why Massachusetts and Virginia and the other colonies should complain of the same method.

123. The Colonial View of the Case.—But the colonists, and a small but very influential minority in Parliament, took another view of the case. Many of the colonies had been settled by men who had come to America for the purpose of escaping from a system which they regarded as unfair and tyrannical. Two revolutions in England had established the authority of Parliament as against the individual will of the king, but the methods of representation had not been changed. Indeed, they were worse than they had been when the Puritans came to New England, more than a hundred years before. During the intervening period the colonists had been receiving a liberal education in matters of government. In their town meetings and their provincial legislatures they had had to consider and decide a vast number of subjects, until they very naturally came to think they could understand the real requirements of the country far better than could a Parliament three thousand miles away. Some of the colonial writers denied that the British had the legal right to tax the Americans, while others claimed that, even if they had the legal right, an enforcement of that right would be contrary to the whole spirit of English liberty, and ought to be resisted.

124. Folly of the British Government.—If the British government had been wise, these differences might have been reconciled; but George III. and the friends whom he called about him could not see why Boston, New York, and Philadelphia should object to taxation while Birmingham and Manchester did not. The fact remained, however, that the colonies did object, and this important difference any wise government would have seen and taken into account. But George III. stubbornly held that if the colonies resisted the supreme authority of the king and Parliament, they must simply be forced into obedience. This doctrine, for which the king, and the king alone, was responsible, was the fatal error that cost Great Britain the American colonies.

125. Grenville’s Scheme of Taxation.—In 1764 Parliament, under the leadership of Lord Grenville, made a formal declaration that it had a right to tax the colonies, and a year later proposed to raise a tax by what was known as the “Stamp Act.” This provided that all transactions, to be lawful, must be printed, or written, on paper furnished by the government and bearing the government stamp. Even newspapers and almanacs had to be printed on this stamped paper. The cost of the stamps varied from a few cents to fifty or sixty dollars. Grenville thought this form of taxation would afford no chance to evade the custom-house, no temptation to smuggle, and would dispense with all disagreeable prying into warehouses and private dwellings in search of smuggled goods. It was believed that the act would enforce itself and produce a large revenue.

126. Spirit of the Colonies.—This belief shows how generally the spirit of the colonists was misunderstood. Only a few of the greatest and wisest of the British statesmen saw the danger in the policy proposed. These men, of whom Chatham and Burke were the leaders, did not deny the constitutional right of Parliament to tax all British subjects, but they held that it would be madness to try to enforce that right, since such an attempt would probably result in the loss of the colonies. The very thing they feared and predicted took place.

THE RESISTANCE OF THE COLONISTS.

127. Organization for Resistance.—The colonists instantly organized a general resistance to the tax. Samuel Adams^[59] and James Otis^[60] in Massachusetts, and Patrick Henry^[61] in Virginia, were the most active of the colonial leaders. Adams sent letters in every direction denouncing the tax; Otis inflamed the people of Boston and the vicinity with his essays and his oratory; and Henry appealed to the Virginians with overpowering eloquence. A general congress representing the colonies met in New York, October 7, 1765, and passed a series of resolutions denouncing the Stamp Act as a violent encroachment on the principle, “No taxation without representation.” Lawyers agreed not to regard paper as made illegal by the absence of a stamp. Newspapers were issued bearing the sign of a skull and crossbones in place of a stamp, and boxes of stamps, on their arrival, were seized and burned.

128. Repeal of the Stamp Act.—It was not long before even Grenville was convinced that the Stamp Act was a failure. As it could not be enforced, and as it brought very little revenue, it was repealed the very year after it had become a law. There are, however, two ways of doing an act demanded by the people: to do it with a tact that will convey the largest amount of satisfaction; or to do it with some reservation or qualification that leaves a sting behind it. The latter course was taken by the British government, which said in substance: We repeal the act, because its enforcement will be injurious to our commercial interests, but in doing so we expressly declare “the supreme right of Parliament to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and the people of America in all ways whatever.”

129. The Townshend Acts.—The “Stamp Act” was followed by the “Townshend Acts” in 1767. One of these acts forbade the colonies to trade with the West Indies and was evidently designed to force the Americans to buy West Indian goods in Great Britain. Another provided for a new duty on all imports of glass, paper, paints, and teas. Still another, and the most obnoxious of the Townshend Acts, was one which legalized “Writs of Assistance.” Such writs had formerly been unlawfully used as a means of enforcing the statute against smuggling. These papers, by being signed in blank, so that names could be inserted at the convenience of the officer, provided a means by which any sheriff or constable could enter any man’s house to search for whatever he wanted to find.

130. Opposition to the Townshend Acts.—The Townshend Acts provoked instant opposition. Associations pledged to abstain from using any of the articles taxed, were formed in various parts of the country. The Massachusetts Assembly sent a circular letter to the other colonies, inviting them to concerted resistance; but this letter so provoked the king that he ordered the governor of Massachusetts to demand that the Assembly rescind the vote, on pain of dissolution. The Assembly promptly refused, whereupon Governor Bernard promptly dissolved it. Everywhere a similar spirit of opposition prevailed.

131. The Farmer’s Letters.—The next year, 1768, public feeling was greatly intensified and united by what were known as the Farmer’s Letters—a remarkable series of papers written by John Dickinson,^[62] a young lawyer of Philadelphia, endowed with wealth, education, and brilliant talents. He set forth with great skill the claims of the colonies and the dangers to the liberties of the people from a policy of submission. These letters were so widely read that they had a vast influence in shaping the course of the colonies.^[63]

132. The Boston Massacre.—In 1768 the king sent over two regiments of soldiers to Boston for the special purpose of enforcing the obnoxious acts. In March, 1770, there was a spirited quarrel between some citizens and the soldiers in one of the streets of Boston, whereupon the troops fired upon the crowd, killing five and wounding seven others. This event, commonly known as the “Boston Massacre,” greatly widened the breach. An immense concourse gathered the next day in the Old South Meetinghouse. Samuel Adams was sent to Governor Hutchinson^[64] to demand, in the name of three thousand freemen, the removal of the soldiers from the town. The governor thought it prudent not to refuse, and sent the troops to an island in Boston Harbor.

THE TAX ON TEA.

133. Partial Repeal of the Townshend Acts.—These events convinced Parliament that the Townshend Acts could not be enforced; but the government only repeated the course taken in repealing the Stamp Act. Instead of annulling the obnoxious provisions outright, they repealed the tax on all the articles except tea, but they held to the duty on this one article in order to maintain the principle. They ingeniously tried to make the tax on tea acceptable by remitting the usual duty which had to be paid on tea sent to America, when in transit it arrived in England. But it was not the cost of the tea that the Americans objected to; it was the principle of taxation.

134. General Treatment of the Tea.—As the British had no doubt the Americans would receive the tea under these conditions, large cargoes were sent to various American ports. The government commissioners appointed to receive this tea soon found that the people everywhere refused it. In Charleston large quantities were stored and afterward sold to the public; at Annapolis the tea was burned; at Philadelphia and at New York, after browbeating the commissioner into resigning, the people compelled the ships to return to England.

135. The Boston “Tea Party.”—It was in Boston, however, that the most vigorous action was taken. A large cargo had arrived in December of 1773, but the people would not allow it to be landed. The vessel no doubt would have returned to England, but the colonial officers refused to give the clearance papers required of all vessels before sailing. If the cargo was not landed within twenty days after its arrival, the custom-house officers were authorized by law to seize and land it by force. It was evident that the tea must be destroyed, or its landing could not be prevented except by open resistance. On the nineteenth day a town meeting of six or seven thousand persons met in and about the Old South Meetinghouse to decide what course to pursue. During the evening, in accordance with a general understanding, a great crowd went down to the wharf to see what would occur. When they were assembled, a small company of men, dressed as Indians, quietly rowed out to the ships, broke open more than three hundred chests of tea, and poured the contents into the harbor.

NEW LEGISLATION AND OPPOSITION.

136. The “Five Acts of 1774.”—This defiant action, though applauded in all parts of the colonies, filled the British government with indignation, and drove the ministers to the “Five Acts of 1774,” which by their unwise energy immediately precipitated the crisis. Four of these were directed against Massachusetts alone; the fifth affected all the colonies. The first of the five acts was the “Boston Port Bill.” It provided that no ships should be allowed to enter or depart from Boston Harbor until the tea that had been destroyed was paid for. This in effect put an end to the commerce of the city, and completely destroyed its prosperity. Gloucester was made the port of entry and Salem the seat of government. The second act was that for the “Impartial Administration of Justice in Massachusetts Bay,” which reflected upon the colony’s tribunals by providing for the trial in England or Nova Scotia of officials accused of murder committed in the discharge of their functions. The third was the “Massachusetts Bill,” which virtually took away the charter by vesting all power of appointment and removal exclusively in the governor appointed by the Crown. The fourth was an act which provided for the quartering of troops on the people, thus establishing the means of enforcing new laws. The fifth was the “Quebec Act,” of which the most offensive feature was the one providing that all the British territory west of the Alleghanies and north of the Ohio should henceforth be regarded as a part of Canada. As this territory was claimed by the colonies, the act was regarded as a gross infringement of their rights. The Quebec Act also gave the Roman Catholic religion throughout Canada the stamp of official recognition.

137. Opposition in Parliament.—The passage of these acts was strenuously opposed by several of the strongest men in Parliament. The opposition of Fox, Burke, Pitt, and BarrÉ was particularly energetic. In the House of Peers, Lord Rockingham and his friends entered a protest on the journal of the House, and the Duke of Richmond declared, in his indignation, “I wish from the bottom of my heart that the Americans may resist and get the better of the forces sent against them.” But the king was determined, and Lord North, who had just been advanced to the position of prime minister, gave his general assent to the measures, though he privately tried to prevent the king from pressing the Transportation Bill.

138. Effect upon the Colonies.—Upon the colonies the effect of these acts was general and immediate. As soon as the provisions of the Boston Port Bill became known, the colonies all saw that they must act together or be individually crushed. Public opinion rapidly took definite form. This was largely the work of committees of correspondence, organized at Faneuil Hall, Boston, chiefly through the energy and foresight of Samuel Adams. In Virginia a similar mode of procedure was adopted the following year, and an invitation was extended to all the colonies to appoint committees for the same purpose. The work of these committees was to make each colony acquainted with the views of all the others.

139. First Continental Congress.—As a result of the agitation that followed, Massachusetts, at the request of New York, called for a meeting of representatives of the various colonies, to be convened early in September, 1774. The governor of Georgia prohibited the appointment of delegates, but representatives of the twelve other colonies met on the 5th of September, in Carpenters’ Hall, in Philadelphia. This body is known as the “First Continental Congress.” It contained a large share of the ablest men in the country. After adopting a Declaration of Colonial Rights, in which the political claims of the colonies were clearly and fully set forth, they named eleven different acts, which they declared had been passed in violation of their rights since the accession of George III. They framed a petition to the king, as well as an address to the people of Great Britain, and then formed what was called “The American Association,” the object of which was to put a stop to all trade with Great Britain until the obnoxious laws should be repealed. After providing for another congress, to be held in the following spring, the meeting adjourned on the 26th of October.

THE CRISIS.

140. General Gage and the Provincial Congress of Massachusetts.—While these actions were taking place in Philadelphia, affairs were drifting to an immediate crisis in Massachusetts. General Gage, now governor of Massachusetts, as well as military commander, was fully inspired with the spirit of his royal master. He promptly sent to Chelsea for military stores and began a system of fortifications. The colonists, easily perceiving the significance of the British general’s action, took similar measures of precaution. In order to be independent of General Gage, they also organized what is known as “The Provincial Congress of Massachusetts”; and this body, on the very day when the First Continental Congress adjourned, authorized the organization of a military force, consisting of all the able-bodied men in the colony. One fourth of these were to be always ready for action, and, hence, were known as minutemen. After making provisions for supplying the army with the necessary equipment and munitions, the Provincial Congress intrusted the conduct of affairs to the general control of a Committee of Safety, of which John Hancock,^[66] a wealthy merchant of Boston, was the chairman.

141. Gage’s Purpose.—It was not long before blood was shed. There were certain military stores at Concord, and General Gage determined to seize them. For this purpose he dispatched very secretly about eight hundred men, under Lieutenant Colonel Smith and Major Pitcairn. The expedition had still another object. The king having ordered the arrest of John Hancock and Samuel Adams, these leaders had withdrawn from Boston and were the guests of a friend in Lexington. Gage had learned where they were and had ordered their seizure by the troops bound for Concord. The British force, after taking the greatest precautions for secrecy, left the city on the night of the 18th of April. But the vigilant eye of a patriot, Dr. Warren, had detected the purpose of the movement.

142. The Ride of Paul Revere.—In spite of Gage’s orders that nobody should leave Boston that night, Paul Revere, a Boston goldsmith, succeeded in crossing the Charles River,—having previously attended to setting an alarm signal in the tower of the Old North Church,—and galloped by the Medford road toward Lexington, shouting at every house that the British were coming.

143. Battles of Lexington and Concord.—The minutemen instantly assembled and drew up on Lexington Common to meet the British when they appeared. Pitcairn ordered them to disperse, but seeing no signs of their moving, first fired his own pistols and then ordered a volley. Eight men were killed and ten wounded. Although the Americans fired in return, they were in no condition to offer battle. Hancock and Adams, having received the necessary warning, made timely escape. The troops pushed on to Concord, but found that the greater part of the stores had been removed. Four hundred Americans then charged across the Concord bridge and drove back the British. The minutemen were by this time streaming in from every direction, and as the British were fired upon from behind trees and fences, they had nothing to do but to beat a retreat. They were saved only by a timely reËnforcement of twelve hundred men under Lord Percy. In the course of the expedition the British lost two hundred and seventy-three; the Americans, eighty-eight. The battles of Lexington and Concord, April 19, 1775, proclaimed to everybody that war had begun. The readiness with which the people responded to the call was shown by the fact that among the killed and wounded on that day there were representatives of twenty-three different towns. Within less than a week General Gage found himself surrounded in Boston by a motley force of sixteen thousand Americans armed with such weapons as they could secure.