Iftft'l* Ikgjlahi.kj' I t .?fi,iif,a fur the- fauruting if a, CoUegi miM^^B'B^yf'. Gift of Prof. Irving Fisher THE NATIONAL EDITION This edition is strictly limited to seventeen hundred signed, numbered a7id registered sets. Number :_ CTERENT LITEEATURE PUBLISHIXG COMPAXY ^^^iU^tt^ ,S%^/c^gz^ Manager PATRICK HENRY AD DRESSING THE VIRGINIA ASSEMB LY GREAT DEBATES IN AMERICAN HISTORY From the Debates in the British Parliament on the Colonial Stamp Act (17 64.-17 65 J to the Debates in Congress at the Close of the Taft Administration (1912-1913) edited by ISIARION MILLS MILLER, Litt.D. (Princeton) Editor of "The Life and Works of Abraham Lincoln," etc IN FOURTEEN VOLUMES EACH DEALING WITH A SPECIFIC BDBJECT, AND CONTAINING A SPECIAL INTRODUC TION BT A DISTINGUISHED AMERICAN STATESMAN OR PUBLICIST VOLUME ONE Colonial Rights- The Revolution— The Constitution With an Introduction by Henrt Cabot Lodge, LL.D. Senator from Massachusetts CURRENT LITERATURE PUBLISHING COMPANY NEW YORK Copyright, 1913, by CURRENT LITERATURE PUBUSHING COMPANY Press of J. J. Little & Ives Co., New York CONTENTS OF THE SERIES VOL. I. COLONIAL RIGHTS— THE REVOLUTION— THE CONSTITUTION. Introduction by Henry Cabot Lodge, LL.D., Senator from Massachusetts. VOL. II. FOREIGN RELATIONS, PART 1. Introduction by William Jennings Beyan, LL.D., Secre tary of State. VOL. III. FOREIGN RELATIONS, PART 2. Introduction by Theodore Roosevelt, LL.D., Ex-President of the United States. VOL. IV. SLAVERY FROM 1790 TO 1857. Introduction by Charles Francis Adams, LL.D., Author of "Lee at Appomattox," etc. VOL. V. STATE RIGHTS [1798-1861] AND SLAVERY [1858-1861]. Introduction by Ethelbeet D. Waepield, LL.D., President of Lafayette College. VOL. VI. THE CIVIL WAR. Introduction by Henry Watterson, LL.D., Editor of the Louisville Courier- Journal. VOL. VII. CIVIL RIGHTS, PART 1. Introduction by Woodrow Wilson, LL.D., President of the United States. VOL. VTII. CIVIL RIGHTS, PART 2. Introduction by Walter Hines Page, LL.D., American Ambassador to the Court of St. James. VOL. IX. DEPARTMENTS OF GOVERNMENT. Introduction by William Howard Taft, LL.D., Ex-Presi dent of the United States. VOL. X. ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL QUESTIONS, PART 1. Introduction by Arthur Twining Hadley, LL.D., Presi dent of Yale University. iii iv GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES VOL. XL ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL QUESTIONS, PART 2. Introduction by Charles R. Van Hise, President of the University of Wisconsin. VOL. XII. REVENUE : TARIFF AND TAXATION. Introduction by Ida M. Tarbell, L. H. D., Associate Edi tor of the American Magazine. VOL. XIII. FINANCE, PART 1. Introduction by Theodore E. Burton, LL.D., Senator from Ohio. VOL. XIV. FINANCE, PART 2. Introduction by Irving Fisher, Ph.D., Professor of Po litical Economy in Yale University. CONTENTS OF VOLUME ONE PAGE xi PREFACE INTRODUCTION: The Constitution and Its Makers ... 1 By Henry Cabot Lodge. CHAPTER I. THE STAMP ACT (Debates in Parliament and Colonial As semblies) . . ...... 13 Debate in the House of Commons between Sir Charles Town- send and Col. Isaac Barr:^, on the Passage of the Act. Debate in the Virginia Assembly on Patrick Henry's reso lutions against the Act: in favor, Mr. Henry, Richard Henry Lee; opposed, Peyton Randolph. Arguments against the Act by James Otis (Mass.), John Adams (Mass.), Daniel Dtjlany (Md.), Theodoric Bland (Va.). n. THE SUPREMACY OF PARLIAMENT (Debates in Parlia ment) . ........ 40 Debate in the Commons on the Right to Tax America: in favor, George Geenville; opposed, William Pitt, Sr. Debate in the Commons on a resolution declaring Parliament supreme: in favor. Gen. Henry Seymour Conway and the Marquis of Rockingham; opposed, Col. Isaac BarrS, and Me. Pitt. Debate in the Commons on the Repeal of the Stamp Act: in favor. Gen. Conway, Mr. Pitt and Col. BarbS; opposed, Mr. Geenville. Debate in the Lords on the Supremacy of Parliament: in favor Lord Mansfield; opposed, Lord Camden. in. "NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION" (Con troversy between the Colonial Assemblies and British Par liament) 68 Controversy over the "Townshend Taxes" between Lord Hillsborough and James Otis (Mass.). Arguments against the Taxes by JosiAH Quincy, Jr. (Mass.), Col. Barr]6, and Patrick Henry (Va.) Debate in the First Continental Congress over Royal Govern ment of the Colonies: in favor, Joseph Galloway (Pa.), John Jay (N. Y.), Edward Rutledge (S. C.) ; opposed, Mr. Hbney. Addresses of the Congress: to the British people, drafted by Mr. Jay; to the King, drafted by John Dickinson (Pa.). vi GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES CHAPTEB *AQB IV. FORCE OR CONCILIATION? (Debates in the British ParUa- m^ent) .......... 99 Debate in the Lords on the Removal of Troops from Boston: in favor. Lord Chatham (formerly William Pitt, Sr.), Lord Camden, Lord Shblburnb, and the Marquis of Rock ingham. Tilt in the Lords between Lord Chatham and Lord Sand wich over the character of Benjamin Franklin. Plans of Conciliation by Lord Chatham, Dr. Franklin, Lord North, and Edmund Burke. Burke 's great speech on ' ' Conciliation with America. ' ' Burke's peroration on "The Right to Tax America." V. COLONIES VS. PARLIAMENT (American Debates and Speeches) ..... ... 150 Speech of James Wilson in the Pennsylvania Assembly: "In Vindication of the Colonies. ' ' Debate in the Virginia Convention on Patrick Henry's reso lutions to adopt Defensive Measures: in favor, Mr. Henry (his "Liberty or Death" speech); opposed, Richard Bland, Robert Carter Nicholas, and Edmund Pendleton. Address of the Second Continental Congress to the British people, drafted by Richard Henry Lee (Va.). Declaration of Congress to the World, drafted by John Dickinson (Pa.). VI. COLONIES VS. THE CROWN (Speeches and Debates on the Declaration of Independence) . ... 173 The Mecklenburgh (N. C.) Declaration of Independence. Proposition of American Independence by Thomas Paine (Pa.) in his "Common Sense." Address of Judge William Henry Drayton (S. C.) on ' ' America Created to Be Free. ' ' Declaration of Eights by Virginia, drafted by George Mason. Debate in Congress on the resolution of Richard Henry Lee (Va.), declaring American Independence: in favor, Mr. Lee, John Adams (Mass.), Geoege Whyte (Va.) ; opposed, John Hancock (Mass.), James Wilson (Pa.), Robert R. Liv ingston (N. Y.), Edwaed Rutledge (S. C), John Dickin son (Pa.). VII. THE DECLARATION OP INDEPENDENCE . . .200 Original and Final Drafts of the Declaration. Speech of Samuel Adams (Mass.) on "American Independ ence. ' ' VIII. REVOLUTION OR REBELLION? 209 Speeches in Parliament by Lord Chatham, Charles James Fox, and John Wilkes against the American War. Address by Congress (drafted by Samuel Chase) against British proposals of peace : "Be Not Deceived. ' ' Controversy between the Bael of Shelburnb and Thomas Paine (Pa.) on Great Britain's Refusal to Grant Inde pendence to America. CONTENTS OF VOLUME ONE vii CHAPTER PAGE IX. THE CONFEDERATION 238 Debate in Congress on report of Committee to Draft Articles of Confederation: Samuel Chase (Md.), John Adams (Mass.), Benjamin Habeison (Va.), James Wilson (Pa.), Dr. John Witherspoon (N. J.), Dr. Benjamin Feanklin (Pa.), Dr. Benjamin Rush (Pa.), and Stephen Hop kins (R. I.). Text of the Articles. Speech of Dr. David Ramsey (S. C.) on "Our Independent Constitutions. ' ' "An Appeal to National Honor" (in regard to National Rev enue), by Oliver Ellswoeth (Ct.), James Madison (Va.), and Alexander Hamilton (N. Y.). Speech of Lord Sheffield in opposition to Commercial Treaty with the United States. Ordinance of 1787, organizing the Northwest Territory. Gen. George Washington (Va.) on the "Failure of the Con federacy. ' ' X. THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION . . .269 Plan of a Constitution by Pelatiah Webster (Pa.). Speech of Alexander Hamilton (N. Y.) "On Granting Tax ing Powers to Congress." Plans of Government presented in the Constitutional Conven tion by Edmund Randolph (Va.), Charles Pincknet (S. C), and William Patbeson (N. J.). XI. PEOPLE OR STATES? 299 Debate in the Constitutional Convention on the "Jersey Plan" of Equal Representation of States in Congress: in favor, John Lansing, Jr. (N. Y.), William Patbrson (N. J.), Oliver Ellswoeth (Ct.) ; in favor of Representation by Population, James Wilson (Pa.), Gov. Edmund Randolph (Va.), Alexander Hamilton (N. Y.), James Madison (Va.). xil strong or weak government? . . . .317 Debate in the Constitutional Convention on the "Virginia Plan" of Representation of States in Congress according to Population: in favor, James Wilson (Pa.), James Madi son (Va.), Charles Pinokney (S. C), Alexander Hamil ton (N. Y.), Hugh Williamson (N. C), Elbrldge Gerry (Mass.), EuFus King (N. Y.), Gov. Edmund Randolph (Va.); opposed. Dr. William Samuel Johnson (Ct.), Judge Oliver Ellswoeth (Ct.), Luther Martin (Md.), Gov. Benjamin Franklin (Pa.), George Read (Del.), Abeaham Baldwin (Ga.), Gunning S. Bedford, Jr. (Del.), GOUVEBNEUE MOBBIS (Pa.). viii GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES CHAPTEB SAGE XIII. MINOR DEBATES IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL CON VENTION 351 Debate on the Powers of the President (general account). Debate on National Control of Commerce (general account). Debate on Counting Slaves in Apportioning Representation: in favor, Rogee Shbeman (Ct.), Oliver Ellsworth (Ct.), Gen. Charles Coteswoeth Pinckney (S. C), John Rut ledge, Sr. (S. C), Pierce Butler (S. C.) ; opposed, Rufus King (N. Y.), Gouveenbur Morris (Pa.), James Wilson (Pa.), George Mason (Va.). XIV. NATION OR CONFEDERATION? (Debates in the States on Ratification of the Constitution) ..... 364 Debate in the Massachusetts Convention (general account). Speech of Fisher Ames (Mass.) on "Union, the Dyke of the Nation. ' ' Debate in the Virginia Convention: in favor of Ratification, Edmund Pendleton, Edmund Randolph, James Madison, George Wythe, John Marshall; opposed, Patrick Henry, George Mason, William Grayson. Debate in the New York Convention (general account). XV. DEFENSE OF THE CONSTITUTION (Letters in the Press) 379 Letters of "Fabius" (John Dickinson, of Pennsylvania). The "Federalist" Papers, by Alexander Hamilton (N. Y.), James Madison (Va.), and John Jay (N. Y.). XVI. THE CONSTITUTION AND ITS AMENDMENTS . . 410 Text, with annotations. ILLUSTRATIONS IN VOLUME ONE FAGS "Treason!" [Patrick Henry addressing the Virginia As sembly in opposition to the Stamp Act] . Frontispiece Photogravure The Council of the Rulers and Elders against the Tribe of Great Americanites 21 The Deplorable State of America, or Sc — ^h Government . 29 British Caricature of Lord Bute Funeral Procession of the Stamp Act .... 57 Boston Massacre Coffins 78 The Able Doctor, or America Swallowing the Bitter Draft 87 Conciliation 105 Cartoon in the London Magazine Peace 149 Cartoon in the London Magazine America in Flames 163 Join or Die 171 Reception of the American Loyalists by Great Britain . 172 British cartoon War 183 Cartoon in the London Magazine Signing the Declaration of Independence .... 192 Photogravure The Horse America Throwing His Master .... 199 British cartoon A Picturesque View of the State of the Nation, for Febru ary, 1778 219 John Wilkes, Esq 222 Caricature by William Hogarth Wha Wants Me ? 228 Caricature of Thomas Paine Magna Brittania : Her Colonies Reduced .... 237 Benjamin Franklin 332 Photogravure ix GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES PREFACE OF THE SERIES [including bibliogeaphy] ONE of the most notable scenes in ancient history was the joint debate between Demosthenes and -^schines, "On the Crown." The point at issue was whether a civic crown should be granted to Demos thenes, the Athenian premier, for his policy toward Philip of Macedon, who was attempting to subvert the liberties of the peninsular Greeks. -^Eschines, the leader of the anti-administration party, opposed the grant, having deposited a large sum that he would prove his charge of corruption against Demosthenes. The result of the debate would be either that the whole national policy would be reversed, and the man responsible for it be deposed and disgraced, or that it would be vindi cated and its impugner driven from the city a penniless exile. It was the latter event which occurred. So great and so widespread was the interest in the debate that the open-air theater in which it was held was packed with thousands of people, including visitors from the farthest borders of the Greek world who had been drawn to the capital by the importance of the issue and the fame of the debaters. Under all these circum stances the two great statesmen, each a finished rhetori cian and a master of all the arts of public controversy, as well as profoundly versed in constitutional law, made the supreme efforts of their long and brilliant careers. Each point in the speeches was thoroughly compre hended by the audience, and every oratorical period ap preciated at its true aesthetic value, for the ancient Greeks had developed to the highest two kindred pas sions, that for controversy and that for rhetoric, both particularly in the domain of politics. Every man being xi xii GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES an intense partisan, stormy gusts of cheers and derisive shouts swept again and again in conflicting waves over the vast assembly, while the unperturbed speakers paused for their subsidence. In its physical aspect this was the greatest debate in all history. But only in this aspect, for, despite a prevalent im pression (based on the impossibility of paralleling such a spectacle in the modern world) that debate is in decay, never was forensic contest more keen than now, and never did it have more interested or appreciative auditors, nor — and this is the point of superiority over the ancients — has it ever had by millions so many. When a statesman rises to-day in the American Congress, or the British Parliament, or any national as sembly in the world, to speak upon a great issue, if this is vital to his country the mind of every patriot within the land attends, and if the question is one of world politics the furthest corner of the earth is agog to catch his utterance. The telegraph, and its record, the newspaper, are the instruments which give such a speaker an audience larger and more representative of every shade of belief and form of interest than all the hearers combined who hung on the words of the entire roll of ancient orators. Occasionally outside of the national capital there will be a debate between statesmen on a vital question, and, for the time, the place where it occurs, however insignificant otherwise, will be the Mecca of the nation, toward which the eyes of the faithful are turned. Such a place was Freeport, Illinois, where Abraham Lincoln by clever finesse forced from Stephen A. Douglas the proposal of "unfriendly legislation" toward slavery in the Territories, and thereby caused the ultimate schism in the Democratic party, and the triumph of the Repub lican party under his own leadership. The "Freeport doctrine" this proposal was called, and the name will be forever recorded in American political history. However, it is Washington at which, with few excep tions, the great debates in American history have oc curred. To our mind the academic discussion of some general principle which may take place in any non-legis- PREFACE xui lative forum, including that of the magazine and news paper, is not properly a political debate. No debate is ,, complete unless it is followed by some concrete political / action, preferably a vote upon a measure embodying the principle discussed. With such decision in prospect the controversy acquires the aspect of a real bout, a duel if there are two contestants, a field contest if there are many, and if these are, as is usually the case, divided into two parties, with the individual members of each so united in principle and program as to supplement the efforts of one another. The duel, however, is the typical form of debate. In deed, a field contest, in its general aspect of "team play," is a duel of one group against another, and in detail is a number of duels between coupled antagonists. Each contestant maneuvers to gain the superior po sition over his adversary, and, when this is attained, to drive home his advantage. Direction is given his ef forts by the fixed end in view, which, in both parlia mentary law and finesse, is the question to be voted upon. Therefore, debate is law in the making, and legislation is the essence of political history. AU great historians recognize this, and so from Thucydides down have studied legislative debates. To what degree they have done so is probably the most ac curate test of the value of their work. Certainly it is so in the case of American historians, for the United States is in all political aspects a constitutional democ racy, and every important political event must be re lated to some legislative act, passed almost invariably after discussion, or to some constitutional function, which was originally a legislative act passed after ex tended debate. Debate is thus the crucible of law, which is the metal of history. This symbol of the fusing pot is particu larly apt in the case of American debate, for almost all the results of Congressional discussion have been of the nature of compromises. Even when a minority has been overborne, its protest has, if not at once some time thereafter, become effective in toning down the original purpose of the majority. Thus the overwhelming and xiv GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES imperious Radical majority in Congress after the Civil War failed to impeach President Johnson, and could not fasten permanently upon the South the Federal control of elections. If, then, the historian profits by the study of debate, why should not everyone interested in politics follow his example? Why should he, too, not enjoy the en thusiasm of discovering the original materials of his tory and forming his own conclusions thereon? Heretofore there has been a conclusive reason why this pleasure and profit, this high culture of intellectual insight and judgment, have been denied him. It has been impossible, without devoting, like the historian, many years to research work, and an equal period to comparison and selection, to acquire a discriminating knowledge of the debates in Congress and of their re lation to each other. The records of our national as sembly are presented in about five hundred large tomes, each averaging a thousand pages of two thousand words, making an approximate total of one billion words. Beginning with the Annals of Congress, and continuing with the Congressional Globe and the Congressional Record, this record is in strict chronological order, rou tine business being mingled with debates in a fashion most provoking to the investigator. Furthermore, it takes an expert to follow a subject through its widely separated installments by means of the index. Even when he has acquired this facility, the reader must dig his way through a mass of worthless material to find the vein of golden thought for which he is seeking. Undoubtedly the superior grounding of our early statesmen in their subjects of discussion was due simply to the fact that the literature of debate was still of mod erate extent, so that they could compass all that had been said before them on any given question. "Elliott's Debates," especially after their inclusion of the Mad ison Papers, rounded up the debates of the Confedera tion and the Constitutional Convention, although in un digested form. The Annals of Congress contained di gests rather than verbatim reports of the debates in Congress for the first quarter of a century, and Senator PREFACE XV Thomas H. Benton's abridgment of Congressional de bates down to the close of the first half of the nineteenth century saved recourse to the official reports. Benton's book can hardly be called a compilation, since it follows the chronological order of the Annals of Congress and the Congressional Globe, from which its material was taken, and merely reduces these official records by ex cision and condensation. It is a digest rather than a selection. Although the need of a new selection and abridg ment of American debates grew cumulatively greater with every year that followed Benton's work, the labor of preparing one increased apace, deterring editors from the task, and none appeared before the present year (1913). It is true that the list of books relating to American eloquence forms one of the largest bibliographies of works published in the United States; and in this list collections of political orations are notable for their number and extent. But these are disjecta membra of debates, and, while inciting the reader with desire to possess the complete body, do not in any degree satisfy the desire. Even when a debate is ostensibly presented in one of these compilations, it is invariably the rhetori cal, rather than argumentative, passages which are ex tracted and set over against each other. This is notably the case with the "classic" debate between Senators Webster and Hayne. Believing that the practical American mind prefers argument, the clash of mind against mind, to mere rhetoric, which in its most interesting phase, the reve lation of personality, is as far below debate as contrast is below contest, and realizing the entire absence of any work to satisfy this desire. Dr. Edward J. Wheeler, the editor of Current Opinion, several years ago planned a compilation of the great debates in our country's his tory from colonial times to the present, which should contain in logical arrangement selected public discus sions of the most important national events, and foren sic controversies over leading political issues, as con ducted by our ablest and most brilliant statesmen. xvi GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES Dr. Wheeler honored me by asking that I compile this important work. Accepting the pleasing but oner ous task, I set to work quarrying material in the rough out of the rich and well-nigh inexhaustible mines of colonial historical records and the official proceedings of Congress. Going over hundreds of volumes each of about a thousand pages, almost literally leaf by leaf, in order that no debate of prime importance should slip by, I unearthed at least a thousand debates all of in terest to-day to the student of politics and economics. From these, with Dr. Wheeler's assistance, and that of Albert EUery Bergh, the editor of "The World's Great Classics" and other important compilations, whom Dr. Wheeler called into consultation, I selected the two hun dred or more which appear in the present work. While a very profound delver into American political history may regret to find that some debate which he considers of importance has been omitted, nevertheless the editor insists that, taking every element of selection into con sideration, the inclusion of any such debate would have forced a better one out of a work which is necessarily limited in its extent. These are the standards by which the selection has been made. They are arranged in the order of prece dence : 1. Importance of the historical event, the legislative act, or the political or economic issue which forms the subject of the debate. 2. Argumentative force of the speeches. 3. Rhetorical brilliance of the speeches. 4. Distinguished rank of the speakers among Amer ican statesmen, with a minor preference for men of original views and interesting personality. In preparing these debates the editor has faithfully tried to follow Herbert Spencer's great principle of lit erary composition: "economy of the reader's atten tion," and to this end has endeavored to give only that information which is essential to a proper understand ing of each issue, and to present this in the place most available to the reader, whether it be preceding, during PREFACE xvii the debate, or following it. The work is not intended as a political history (although it is calculated to form a valuable supplement to such a history) and therefore only that information is presented which will connect the debate in hand with others related to it, and which will save the reader recourse to other works in order to understand the political situation at the time of the de bate, and the unexplained allusions of the debaters. In this way it is believed that the ends of readability and reference are both attained. In further obedience to this law, he has abandoned the rule, common among editors of speeches, of indicat ing omissions by asterisks. Had he continued this prac tise, so numerous were the omissions, owing to the great exigency of condensation, that the reader might at times think he was contemplating an astronomical chart rather than surveying the galaxy of American forensic eloquence. In similar consideration, no less for the author quoted than for the reader, the editor has interpolated as an intrinsic part of the speeches certain phrases bridging over the omitted portions. Then, too, except where a grammatical solecism was plainly intended by a speaker, or is indicative of his personality, such a slip has been corrected. In so doing the editor has followed the example of the best Congressional reporters, cer tainly a sufficient, if not imperative, precedent in the case of editing Congressional speeches. Sticklers for exact phraseology may readily find this in the Congres sional records themselves, by using the dates of the present work as indicators. In this connection it may be claimed that, on the important questions for which these vast and voluminous records are consulted in nine cases out of ten, the present work forms a very simple and practical guide book. Where the substance of a speech, in whole or in part, is given by the editor, this is distinguished typographi cally from speeches or parts of speeches reported as delivered. However, condensations of speeches, changed from direct to indirect discourse, which was the rule in early reporting before the days of verbatim presenta- XVlll GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES tion, are represented in the same type as speeches printed as delivered. Owing to this form of indirect discourse, the early speeches are not as lively as the later, but the reader should remember that what is lost in brilliance is more than compensated for by concentration of thought. In this work, as in any selection of American forensic ora tory, there is fine rhetoric in overflowing measure for those who desire it, but, as has already been stated, "Great Debates" is intended for readers who primarily want clear and forcible argument. Sources of Material In gathering material resource was had to the many collected works of great American statesmen, such as John Adams, Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, Thomas Corwin, Joshua R. Giddings, William H. Seward, Abra ham Lincoln, Charles Sumner, et al., all of which will be found in the public libraries by the student who de sires to read in full the speeches represented in this work. Many collections of speeches were resorted to, of which it will be well to mention a few of the early ones which have been drawn upon by all the editors of the later collections. The chief early compilations are: "Eloquence of the United States," edited by E. B. Wil- liston: Middletown, Ct, 1827, and "American Elo quence," edited by Frank Moore, and published by D. Appleton & Company, New York, 1857. One of the modern compilations deserves special mention for the admirable taste shown in its selection of representative speeches, its illuminating notes, and its well- written biographies of the orators. This is "Amer ican Orations," edited by Professors Alexander John ston of Princeton and James Albert Woodburn of In diana University, and published by G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York. The first copyright was in 1896. Professor Charles Kendall Adams, then of the Uni versity of Michigan, had compiled in similar manner "British Orations," published by the Putnams in 1884. PREFACE xix This has been largely drawn upon by the present editor in preparing the debates in Parliament on Colonial Rights. The chief source of material for the debates in Amer ica during the Colonial and Revolutionary periods, the regime of the Confederation, and the administration of Washington, is "A Political and Civil History of the United States ... to the close of the administra tion of President Washington, ' ' written by Timothy Pit kin, and published at New Haven, Ct., in 1828. Mr. Pitkin was a representative in Congress, and took a leading part in its discussions. His biography will be found in the Index of Proper Names in Volume XIV. He shines as an editor no less than as an his torian, since his work contains not only copious extracts from speeches, but also judicious selections of all the important protests and petitions of the Colonial legisla tures, and the state papers of the Continental Congress, of the Congress under the Confederation, and those of the Washington Administration. The papers of the colonial legislatures and of the Continental Congress, being both argumentative in character and rhetorical in style, have been largely drawn upon in the present work, owing to the lack of preservation of the debates of this period. For the period of the Revolution and the Confedera tion the "Journals of the Continental Congress 1774- 1789," published by the Government Printing Office, 1906, have furnished considerable material. Coming to the formation of the Constitution we find that "Debates on the Federal Constitution," by Jona than Elliott (copyright 1836, and enlarged thereafter; now published by J. B. Lippincott Co., Philadelphia), is the standard work on its subject, being referred to con stantly by both Northern and Southern statesmen from the time of its publication until the Civil War, upon the great questions of State Rights and Slavery. Abra ham Lincoln made an exhaustive study of this work in preparing his great speech at Cooper Union in Febru ary, 1861, on "Slavery as the Fathers Viewed It." Elliott (born in England 1784; died in Washington, D. C, 1846) emigrated to America about 1802, became XX GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES a printer, and then a soldier, fighting for South Amer ican liberty, 1810-1813, and serving in the American army in the War of 1812. In 1814 he settled in Wash ington, editing for thirteen years the "Washington Ga zette." He published a number of statistical and docu mentary works relating to American politics, chief of which is his famous "Debates." He also edited the "Madison Papers" (1845), published by the Govern ment. Of the five volumes of the Debates the first con tains Ante-Revolutionary history, the documents relat ing to American independence, and the documents and speeches relating to the Confederation and the Consti tution, including Judge Yates's Minutes of the Conven tion of 1787; the second, third, and beginning of the fourth, the debates in the State legislatures and conven tions in the ratification of the Constitution; the rest of the fourth, the documents, speeches, and judicial deci sions relating to Constitutional questions debated in Congress 1789-1836; and the fifth, Madison's report of debates in the Congress of the Confederation and in the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Recently the gaps in "Elliott's Debates" have been filled by "The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787," edited by Max Farrand, Professor of History in Yale University, and published by the Yale Univer sity Press, New Haven, Ct., in 1911. It is an exhaustive monograph on the subject, including most interesting notes on the speakers in the Convention made by agents of the French government in America and preserved in that government's archives. These vivacious pen- sketches appear in Volume XIV of "Great Debates" in connection with the biographies of the statesmen re ferred to. They were translated for us by Mrs. Helen E. Meyer, who has admirably preserved the sparkling spirit of the original French. The official and semi-official records of Congress from the adoption of the Constitution to the present time (1912) have furnished, with a few exceptions such as the Lincoln-Douglas joint debates, the material for all the volumes after the first. The Lincoln-Douglas de bates have been abridged from the complete report in PREFACE xxi "The Life and Works of Abraham Lincoln" (1907), pro duced by the editor and publishers of the present work. This collection has also been used to supply intro ductory matter for various other speeches of Lincoln, and the debates in his administration. The first records of Congress were "The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, Compiled from Authentic Materials," edited and pub lished in Washington by two Congressional reporters. Gales and Seaton. The first two volumes appeared in 1834, and the five remaining volumes in 1849-51. These records, known by the briefer title of Annals of Con gress, have supplied the materials in the present work of all the Congressional debates down to 1824, with the exception of certain speeches, such as Daniel Webster 's, where recourse has been had to fuller reports in pub lished works. Most of the speeches were reported in the Annals in condensed form, where indirect discourse was generally adopted, though the speeches of the more distinguished and rhetorical statesmen were presented as delivered, if not in full, at least by extracts of the important pas sages. The selection of these passages and the abstract ing of the other speeches are remarkably well done, Jo seph Gales, Sr., in particular having a keen eye for salient points of argument. The Annals is thoroughly indexed by subjects, and has an appendix containing the important state papers and public documents and all laws of a public nature. Gales and Seaton were aided in their work by the sug gestion and advice of a number of statesmen, notably Madison, whose experience covered the history of Con gress from the beginning. Francis Blair, Sr. (see biography in Volume XIV), and John Cook Rives, a departmental clerk at Washing ton, founded the Congressional Globe in the early part of Jackson's administration. Rives soon became sole proprietor, and continued so until 1864, when he retired with a fortune, of which he gave liberally to the wives of enlisted soldiers, and for the equipment of regiments. There was less editing done by Blair and Rives than xxii GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES by Gales and Seaton, the reports becoming more and more verbatim, until finally they were wholly so. The Globe continued until late in its life the practice of the Annals in recording the important public laws of Con gress. In 1857 Ex-Senator Thomas H. Benton, of Missouri, published an "Abridgment of the Debates of Congress from 1789 to 1856": D. Appleton and Company, New York. Senator Benton derived the material for the first part of his work from the Annals of Congress, and for the latter part from the Congressional Globe. These "Abridgments" are notable specimens of editing, as might be expected of a statesman of such profound ability and long service, as well as of the ex perienced author of "The Thirty Years' View." Nev ertheless he slighted certain discussions which, owing to circumstances, have become of greater interest to readers of the present day than they were to those of his own era, and for these the present editor has re verted to the original sources. It should be remarked in this connection that many American historians have evi dently been misled by following Benton. Thus Alex ander Johnston, in his "American Political History," gives James Madison and Thomas Jefferson the credit for first presenting, in the Kentucky and Virginia Reso lutions and the controversy concerning them, leading constitutional arguments against the Alien and Sedition Laws, which arguments, says Johnston, had been over looked by the Anti-Federalist statesmen in Congress. Now the Annals of Congress show that Albert Gallatin and Edward Livingston had presented these very argu ments most ably and completely. Benton, however, did not preserve them in his "Abridgement." The Congressional Record succeeded the Globe on March 4th, 1873. As in the later issues of the Globe, the laws of Congress were omitted from its appendixes, since these now appeared by themselves in another form of public documents. Nevertheless the appendixes in time became larger than before, owing to the increasing prac tice of speakers, especially in the House, asking "leave PREFACE xxiii to print" their speeches, in order that they might "frank" these to their constituents. Another practice which arose at this period was that of speakers "incor porating" in their remarks speeches of persons, chiefly candidates for office, who were not members of Con gress, articles from magazines, and even entire books. One notable instance of the latter was the division of "Protection and Free Trade," written by Henry George, into six parts, and the incorporation of each by a Representative in his remarks on the McKinley Bill, the whole book thus becoming a public document, more than a million copies of which were franked by the so-called Free Trade Democrats all over the country, with the intention, and it is claimed, with the effect, of promoting the election of an anti-protection Con gress. The Record has thus become a great storehouse of valuable material of every sort of subject: political, so cial and economic. The present work makes available a select portion of its mass of heterogeneous informa tion and argument, but this is necessarily in slight ratio to the whole. It would be a laudable act if Congress ordered a digest of the whole work arranged according to subjects. Failing this, the Government should cer tainly publish a logical index of all its published pro ceedings, with indications of what phase of each sub ject is treated on each page, that such an issue as the Tariff, for instance, could be intelligently followed by the student, with a great saving of his time and his temper. Works of Reference In view of the vast number of admirable treatises on American politics it seems invidious to single out any as specially helpful to readers of the present work who desire to pursue their researches beyond its pages. But the fact that a few works have been of special as sistance to the editor should justify their mention. The book which chiefly guided the author in the selection of debates before the Civil War is the "Con stitutional and Political History of the United States" xxiv GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES by Dr. Hermann von Hoist, published by Callaghan and Company, Chicago, in 1889. This is a work typical of German scholarship, con taining views whose prevailing soundness is the almost mechanical result of a vast reading of original docu ments. Unfortunately the learned author's mind works along a line of thought the methodical principle of which it is difficult for the average American reader to per ceive. Conclusions are often stated in advance of the information upon which they are based, so that the reader does not fully understand one point until he is in the throes of puzzlement over a new one. But, al though the work is thus rendered difficult to read, it will repay study, so just are the author's judgments on both the political issues and the character of statesmen. As has been mentioned. Senator Benton published a work entitled "Thirty Years' View": D. Appleton and Company, New York, 1854. This is a history of Con gress from 1820 to 1850, during which period the author was a Senator from Missouri. He thus speaks of his qualifications : I was in the Senate the whole time of which I write — an active business member, attending and attentive — in the confi dence of half the administrations, and a close observer of the others — had an inside view of transactions of which the public only saw the outside, and of many of which the two sides were very different — saw the secret springs and hidden machinery by which men and parties were to be moved, and measures pro moted or thwarted — saw patriotism and ambition at their re spective labors, and was generally able to discriminate between them. So far, I have one qualification; but Mr. Macaulay says that Lord Lyttleton had the same, and made but a poor history, because unable to use his material. So it may be with me ; but, in addition to my senatorial means of knowledge, I have access to the unpublished papers of General Jackson, and find among them some that he intended for publication, and which will be used according to his intention. This work has been used by the present editor not only for historical reference, but also as a source of ma terial, since it contains copious extracts from important PREFACE XXV debates, chiefly on Slavery and Finance. He has, how ever, reduced somewhat tlio part which Senator Ben ton represented himself as performing in these contro versies — the story is characteristic, if not well authen ticated, that the Senator once condescendingly remarked of President Jackson that "Old Hickory" had been of "considerable assistance" to him ("Old Bullion") in the war against the United States Bank. For the political history of the Civil War and the causes leading up to it, "The American Conflict," by Horace Greeley (published by O. D. Case and Com pany, Hartford, Ct., in 1865) is, though biased in favor of the North, a work which cannot be overlooked by any author, editor, or student dealing with the subject. It has furnished the present editor not only with infor mation for use in introductions, but also with the text of several controversial speeches delivered outside of Congress. Of the many books containing digests of the speeches at the outbreak of the Civil War, the "History, Civil, Political, and Military, of the Southern Rebellion," by Orville J. Victor (published by J. D. Torrey, New York, in 1861) should be here mentioned, as it was largely used by the present editor in preparing the debates on the proposals of Conciliation made in Congress in 1860-61. In similar fashion the "History of the Thirty-ninth Congress," by William H. Barnes (Harper and Brothers, New York, 1868) was of great assistance in the preparation of the debates on Reconstruction, etc., in the period immediately following the Civil War. The chief guide to the debates of the entire Recon struction period was "Twenty Years of Congress," by James G. Blaine (Henry Bell Publishing Company, Nor wich, Ct., 1884). On the issues subsequent to Recon struction the book was unfortunately of little assistance, for the last twelve years of the period discussed were summarily disposed of in less than one-fourth of the work, the author having apparently constructed the be ginning on the basis of at least a four-volume book, only to decide later to close it in two volumes. Thus the xxvi GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES great question of the Free Coinage of Silver, which arose in the closing part of the author's Congressional career, is hardly touched upon. Up to the close of John son's Administration, however, the work forms one of the best examples of American political history, so clear is the exposition of situations, so judicious the selection of argumentative points, so admirable the digest of speeches, and so sound are the author's own comments thereon. A very valuable general guide to the editor was "American Political History, 1763-1876," by the editors of "American Orations," Professors Johnston and Woodburn [G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1905]. This work is logically arranged, covering the subject of the Revolu tion, the Constitution, the Growth of Nationality, Slav ery, Civil War, and Reconstruction. The information is compact and well selected, and presented in clear and orderly fashion. The editorial conclusions, which are founded upon the historical statements, are convincing in tone, and can be overthrown or modified only by a more complete presentation of the basic facts. As accompanying and supplementing this work al most down to date, the reader will find a little primer entitled "American Politics," by Professor Johnston and Professor Winthrop M. Daniels, also of Princeton, to be of great value for ready reference, the subject being treated by Presidential Administrations. Useful lists, such as of Cabinet officers, are included in the Ap pendix. The work is published by Henry Holt and Com pany, New York. The larger work of Professor Johnston, "American Political History," contains extensive bibliographies upon each of its subjects, including almost every im portant book on American politics and economics which was published before 1905. With this reference the reader will excuse us for not enlarging the present bibliography, beyond noting one important work recently published. This is "The Ori gin and Growth of the American Constitution," by Han- nis Taylor, LL.D., ex-Minister to Spain: Houghton, Mifflin Company, Boston, 1911. PREFACE xxvii This historical treatise sets forth the documentary evidence as to Pelatiah Webster's "invention" of the plan of Federal Government, afterwards adopted in the main in the Constitution, and also discusses the adop tion of the Constitution, and the constitutional issues in subsequent American political history. The documents appear in the appendix, and are very thoroughly anno tated, the Constitution of the United States and its Amendments having citations appended of legal decis ions concerning the same. Scheme of the Series A logical order has been adopted for the presenta tion of the debates, which adheres so far as possible to the chronological order. Fortunately in presenting the early debates the logical and chronological orders ex actly coincide, the subjects of Colonial Rights, Inde pendence and Formation of the Constitution coming in causative succession, uninterrupted by any other issues. Volume I thus forms, as it were, an introduction to all the rest of the work. Having this character, those great documents of American constitutional history, the Dec laration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution, which are constantly referred to in the debates in the later volumes, are here inserted, as also are minor related state papers, such as the ad dresses of colonial assemblies, of the Continental Con gresses, and of State Legislatures, an example of the last being the Virginia Bill of Rights. The "Federalist Papers ' ' are also presented in the form of a digest, with a two-fold justification for their insertion: they are re ferred to constantly by the later debaters as the earliest and most authoritative commentaries on the Constitu tion, and have themselves the character of debates, since they quote and answer prevalent objections to the Con stitution. Formal debates were infrequent in colonial America, and only the substance of the few that occurred has been preserved. Accordingly it is to the recorded de bates on colonial affairs, which took place in the British xxviii GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES Parliament, that we must chiefly turn, presenting the single speeches of American orators and the even more argumentative protests of the colonial assemblies as a supplement to the arguments of the British contenders for American rights. Volume I is therefore a record of public controversies, as well as of debates proper, and as such is more historical in character than the remain ing volumes. Since the most vital questions, when our new Gov ernment was struggling to establish its place among the nations of the earth, were those dealing with Foreign Relations, Volumes II and III contain the great debates upon this subject from Washington's Administration to the war with Spain and the diplomatic questions con nected with the Panama Canal. Various debates on Foreign Affairs are inserted in other volumes because of their intimate connection with the subjects of these. Thus the Koszta affair appears in the first volume on Civil Rights. Because our domestic history for the first three- quarters of our Constitutional history largely centered around slavery, this subject is taken up in Volume IV. The volume closes with the debate on the Dred Scott de cision, and Volume V, reverting to the early debates on State's Rights Not Connected with Slavery (such as the Webster-Hayne debate), comes quickly down to the Lincoln-Douglas debates, the result of which precipi tated upon the country the question of secession, in con nection with slavery. The volume continues the de bates on Secession and Slavery down to, and including, the debate on the Conciliation bill in the closing months of Buchanan's Administration. Volume VI contains the debates of Lincoln's Ad ministration, or the Civil War period, with the excep tions of debates on Reconstruction, which will be found in the succeeding volume on Civil Rights, and of debates on Revenue and Finance, which will be found in Vol umes XII and XIII, bearing these titles. Volumes VII and VIII are on Civil Rights. The first reverts to the early discussions on Naturalization, continues with the famous debates on the Alien and PREFACE xxix Sedition Laws, and the related question of State Rights, and, touching upon the question of Nativism (the "Know-Nothing" movement), comes down to the Re construction period, and, taking up the question of Negro Rights where Volume VI left it, presents the debates on the Fourteenth xVmendment. Volume VIII contains the debates on Negro Suffrage, ending with the Fifteenth Amendment, and then, the discussion of the negro being closed, takes up the debates on Indian Rights. The question of Woman's Rights is then pre sented, and the volume closes with debates on Polygamy, which, in its constitutional aspect, is a question of Civil Sights. Volume IX contains debates on the powers and functions of the Departments of Government, Executive (President, Army, Navy), Legislative (Senate, House) and Judicial (Supreme Court), as well as debates on the related question of Civil Service Reform, and on the governmental powers and functions of the sovereign behind all the Departments — the People. Subjects treated in the last connection are Popular Election of President and Senators, Direct Legislation, and Recall of Judges and Judicial Decisions. Volumes X and XI are on Economic and Social problems. In the first are debates on the Land Question (including the Homestead and Conservation laws and the Single Tax theory), and on the Railroad Question (centering around the power of the Federal Government over Interstate Commerce). The second volume con tains debates on the Federal control of Trusts, on Labor legislation, on Socialism, Prohibition of the Liquor Traffic, National Regulation of Foods, etc. Volume XII contains debates on Revenue, the chief subject being the Tariff, all the tariff acts from the rev enue measures of the First Congress to the Payne- Aldrich Act being presented in chronological order, each clearly delimited from the rest by its specific issue. In close connection with the particular tariff or revenue bills which presented them, the subjects of Internal Revenue, Income, Inheritance and Corporation Taxes, and of Reciprocity with Canada are treated. XXX GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES Volumes XIII and XIV contain debates on Finance. The main subjects of the first volume are Public Credit [questions of Repudiation, etc.]. National Banks, "Greenback" or Specie Currency. The last volume deals exclusively with the Silver Question. Volume XIV also contains the General Index of the Series. This is divided into two parts: an Index of Proper Names (persons and places), and an Index of Subjects. These indexes are synoptical in character, enabling the reader to prepare from them his own debates, bio graphical sketches of debaters, etc. Introductions Never before, it is believed, has a work of this nature possessed as its editorial contributors persons of the eminence and authority which distinguish the authors of the introductions of the volumes of the present series. Here they are: the President of the United States; the two living ex-Presidents; the Secretary of State; two Senators, one a noted historian, and the other an emi nent financial expert; three university presidents and one professor of economics, each an authority in the subject which he discusses ; the dean of American jour nalists, and a woman whose rank both as a journalist and economic historian is exceeded by no other writer in America; and two representative men of letters, the one the chief living member of the most distinguished family of New England, the other the scion of an old Virginia house noted for service to nation and State — he himself being the American Ambassador to the Court of St. James. Some of the introductions were written after the author had carefully read the proof sheets of the volume in which the introduction was to appear; others were composed upon a general knowledge of the contents of the volume, and the rest were adapted by the authors from former addresses or articles on subjects appro priate to the volume. Thanks for permission to use the adapted articles are herewith extended to the publishers as well as to the authors. PREFACE xxxi Illustrations The volumes are illustrated with scenes of great de bates and portraits of leading debaters, and with con temporary political cartoons relating to the subjects of the debate and the personality of the debaters. Indeed, the term "illustrated" is too weak a term to state the connection of the pictures with the text, for an apt car toon is in itself the most effective of arguments, often exceeding in results the longest and most learned dem onstration of an orator. Thomas Nast's cartoons of the Reconstruction period appealed on behalf of the Negro more movingly even than the pathetic periods of Charles Sumner, and Homer Davenport's symbolization of the Trust as a brutal giant was more convincing than the diatribes of any of the Populist orators against the ' ' soulless corporations. ' ' In this connection acknowledgment is made of the courtesy extended by the New York Public Library and the New York Historical Society in permitting the reproductions of many of the cartoons in their collections. To W. F. Brainard, of New York City, well known as an expert in "book-building," I would also extend thanks, for sifting the large number of edi torially appropriate cartoons through the meshes of ar tistic and mechanical availability. In conclusion I would express my appreciation of the services of my editorial assistant, Wilbert W. Blake- man. In such portions of the work as the early debates on the Tariff he has shown ability unusual in a young editor by selecting those points of the subject which are vital to-day, and reducing to the essential minimum those points which tempt the editor by their historical significance to expatiate upon them. By such procedure he has saved much needed space for the more important tariff debates of recent times. %%.^^^U^ VOLUME ONE Colonial, Rights — The Revolution The Constitution INTRODUCTION The Constitution and Its Makers^ BESIDE the question of the maintenance or destruc tion of the Constitution of the United States all other questions of law and policy sink into utter insignificance. In its presence party lines should disappear and all sectional differences melt away like the early mists of dawn before the rising sun. The Con stitution is our fundamental law. Upon its provisions rests the entire fabric of our institutions. It is the old est of written constitutions. It has served as a model for many nations, both in the Old World and in the New. It has disappointed the expectations of those who op posed it, convinced those who doubted, and won a suc cess beyond the most glowing hopes of those who put faith in it. Such a work is not to be lightly cast down or set aside, or, which would be still worse, remade by crude thinkers and by men who live only to serve and flatter in their own interest the emotion of the moment. We should approach the great subject as our ancestors approached it — simply as Americans with a deep sense of its seriousness and with a clear determination to deal with it only upon full knowledge and after the most mature and calm reflection. The time has come to do this, not only here and now, but everywhere throughout the country. Let us first consider who the men were who made the Constitution and under what conditions they worked. Then let us determine exactly what they meant to do — a most vital point, for much of the discussion to which 'Adapted from an address delivered before the Literary and Historical Association of North Carolina, at Ealeigh, on November 28, 1911. I 2 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES we have been treated thus far has proceeded upon a complete misapprehension of the purpose and intent of the framers of the Constitution. Finally, let us bring their work and their purposes to the bar of judgment, so that we may decide whether they have failed, whether in their theory of government they were right or wrong then and now, or whether their work has stood the test of time, is broad based on eternal principles of justice, and, if rent or mangled or destroyed, would not in its ruin bring disaster and woes inestimable upon the peo ple who shall wreck their great inheritance and, like The base Indian, throw a pearl away. Richer than all his tribe. First, then, of the men who met in Philadelphia in May, 1787, with doubts and fears oppressing them, but with calm, high courage and with a noble aspiration to save their country from the miseries which threatened it, to lead it out from the wilderness of distractions in which it was wandering blind and helpless, into the light, so that the chaos, hateful alike to God and men, might be ended and order put in its place. It is the fashion just now to speak of the framers of the Constitution as worthy, able, and patriotic persons whom we are proud to have embalmed in our history, but toward whom no enlightened man would now think of turning seriously for either guidance or instruction, so thor oughly has everything been altered and so much has in telligence advanced. It is commonly said that they dealt wisely and well with the problems of their day, but that of course they knew nothing of those which confront us, and that it would be worse than folly to be in any degree governed by the opinions of men who lived under such wholly different conditions. It seems to me that this view leaves something to be desired and is not wholly correct or complete. I certainly do not think that all wisdom died with our fathers, but I am quite sure that it was not born yesterday. I fully realize that in saying even this I show myself to be what is called old fashioned, and I know that a study of his- INTRODUCTION 3 tory, which has been one of the pursuits of my life, tends to make a man give more weight to the teachings of the past than it is now thought they deserve. Yet, after all allowance is made, I can not but feel that there is something to be learned from the men who estab lished the Government of the United States, and that their opinions, the result of much and deep reflection, are not without value, even to the wisest among us. On questions of this character, I think, their ideas and conclusions are not lightly to be put aside; for, after all, however much we may now gently patronize them as good old patriots long since laid in their hon ored graves, they were none the less very remarkable men, who would have been eminent in any period of history and might even, if alive now, attain to distinc tion. Let us glance over the list of delegates to the Con stitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. I find, to begin with, that their average age was 43, which is not an extreme senectitude, and the ages range from Franklin, who was 81, to John Francis Mercer, of Vir ginia, who was 28. Among the older men who were con spicuous in the convention were Franklin, with his more than 80 years; Washington, who was 55; Roger Sher man, who was 66; and Mason and Wythe, of Virginia, who were both 61. But when I looked to see who were the most active forces in that convention, I found that the New Jersey plan was brought forward by William Paterson, who was 42; that the Virginia plan was pro posed by Edmund Randolph, who was 34 ; while Charles Pinckney, of South Carolina, whose plan played a large part in the making of the Constitution, was only 29. The greatest single argument, perhaps, which was made in the convention was that of Hamilton, who was 30. The man who contributed more, possibly, than any other to the daily labors of the convention and who followed every detail was Madison, who was 36. The Connecti cut compromise was very largely the work of Ellsworth, who was 42 ; and the committee on style, which made the final draft, was headed by Gouverneur Morris, who was 35. Let us note, then, at the outset that youth and energy, abounding hope, and the sympathy for the new 4 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES times stretching forward into the great and unchartered future, as well as high ability, were conspicuous among the men who framed the Constitution of the United States. Their presiding officer was Washington, one of the great men of all time, who had led the country through seven years of war, and of whom it has been said by an English historian that "no nobler figure ever stood in the forefront of a nation's life." Next comes Frank lin, the great man of science, the great diplomatist, the great statesman and politician, the great writer; one of the most brilliant intellects of the eighteenth century, who in his long life had known cities and men as few others have ever known them. There was Hamilton, one of the greatest constructive minds that modern statesmanship has to show, to whose writings German statesmen turned when they were forming their empire forty years ago, and about whom in these later days books are written in England, because Englishmen find in the principal author of "The Federalist" the great ex ponent of the doctrines of successful federation. There, too, was Madison, statesman and lawmaker, wise, astute, careful, destined to be, under the Government which he was helping to make. Secretary of State and President. Roger Sherman was there, sagacious, able, experienced; one of the leaders of the Revolution and a signer of the Declaration of Independence, as he was of the Consti tution. Great lawyers were present in Philadelphia in that memorable summer of 1787, such men as Ellsworth and Wilson and Mason and Wythe. It was, in a word, a very remarkable body which assembled to frame a constitution for the United States. Its members were men of the world, men of affairs, soldiers, lawyers, statesmen, diplomatists, versed in history, widely ac complished, deeply familiar with human nature. I think that, without an undue or slavish reverence for the past or for the men of a former generation, we may fairly say that in patriotism and in intellect, in knowledge, experience, and calmness of judgment, these framers of the Constitution compare not unfavorably with those prophets and thinkers of to-day who decry the work of INTRODUCTION 5 1787, would seek to make it over with all modern im provements, and who with unconscious humor declare that they are engaged in the restoration of popular gov ernment. That phrase is in itself suggestive. That which has never existed cannot be restored. If popular govern ment is to be restored in the United States it must have prevailed under the Constitution as it is, and yet those who just now are so devoured by anxiety for the rights of the people propose to effect the restoration they de mand by changing the very Constitution under which popular government is admitted by their own words to have existed. I will point out presently the origin of this confusion of thought. It is enough to say now that for more than a century no one questioned that the gov ernment of the Constitution was in the fullest sense a popular government. In 1863 Lincoln, in one of the greatest speeches ever uttered by man, declared that he was engaged in trying to save government by the peo ple. Nearly thirty years later, when we celebrated the one hundredth anniversary of the Constitution, the uni versal opinion was still the same. All men then agreed that the Government which had passed through the fires of civil war was a popular government. Indeed, this novel idea of the loss of popular government which it is proposed to restore by mangling the Constitution under which it has existed for more than a century is very new ; in fact, hardly ten years old. This first conception of our Constitution as an in strument of popular government, so long held unques tioned, was derived from the framers of the Constitution themselves. They knew perfectly well that they were founding a government which was to be popular in the broadest sense. The theory now sedulously propagated, that these great men did not know what they were about, or were pretending to do one thing while they really did another, is one of the most fantastic delu sions with which agitators have ever attempted to mis lead or perplex the public mind. The makers of the Constitution may have been right or they may have been wrong in the principles upon which they acted or in the 6 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES work they accomplished, but they knew precisely what they meant to do and why they did it. No man in his tory ever faced facts with a clearer gaze than George Washington, and when, after the adjournment of the convention, he said, "We have raised a standard to which the good and wise can repair; the event is in the hands of God," he labored under no misapprehension as to the character of the great instrument where his name led all the rest. It is the fashion to say that since then great changes have occurred and wholly new conditions have arisen of which the men of 1787 could by no possibility have had any knowledge or anticipation. This is quite true. They could not have foreseen the application of steam to transportation, or of electricity to communication, which have wrought greater changes in human environ ment than anything which has happened to man since those dim, prehistoric, unrecorded days when some one discovered the control of fire, invented the wheel, and devised the signs for language, masterpieces of intelli gence with which even the marvels of the last century cannot stand comparison. The men of the Constitution could as little have foreseen what the effects of steam and electricity would be as they could have anticipated the social and economic effects of these great inventions or the rapid seizure of the resources of nature through the advances of science and the vast fortunes and com binations of capital which have thus been engendered. Could they, however, with prophetic gaze have beheld in a mirror of the future all these new forces at work, so powerful as to affect the very environment of human life, even then they would not, I think, have altered materially the Constitution which they were slowly and painfully perfecting. They would have kept on their way, because they would have seen plainly what is now too often overlooked and misunderstood, that all' the perplexing and difficult problems born of these in ventions and of the changes, both social and economic, which have followed were subjects to be dealt with by laws as the questions arose, and laws and policies were not their business. They were not making laws to INTRODUCTION 7 regulate or to affect either social or economic condi tions. Their work was not only higher but far different. They were laying down certain great principles upon which a government was to be built and by which laws and policies were to be tested as gold is tested by a touchstone. There is no greater fallacy than to suppose that new and fundamental principles of government are con stantly to be invented and wrought out. Laws change and must change with the march of humanity across the centuries as it alteration finds in the conditions about it, but fundamental principles and theories of govern ment are all extremely old. If you will read "The Republic" and "The Laws" of Plato and supplement that study by an equally careful examination of what Aristotle has to say on government you will find that those great minds have not only influ enced human thought from that time to this, but that there is little which they left unsaid. It is the fashion, for example, to speak of socialism as if it were some thing new, a radiant discovery of our own time which is to wipe away all tears. The truth is that it is very old, as old in essence as human nature, for it appeals to the strong desire in every man to get something for nothing and to have someone else bear his burdens and do his work for him. As a system it is amply discussed by Plato, who, in "The Republic," urges measures which go to great extremes in this direction. In the fourth century of our era a faction called the Circum- cellions were active as socialists and caused great trouble within the weakening Empire of Rome. The real diffi culty historically with the theories of socialism is not that they are new, but that they are very, very old, and wherever they have been put in practical operation on a large scale they have resulted in disorder, retrogres sion, and in the arrest of civilization and progress. In order to reach the essence of what the makers of the Constitution tried and meant to do, which it is most important to know and reflect upon deeply before we seek to undo their work, let us begin by dismissing from pur consideration all that is unessential or misleading. 8 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES Let us lay aside first the word republic, for a republic de notes a form and not a principle. A republic may be democratic like ours, or an autocracy like that of Augus tus Caesar, or an oligarchy like Venice, or a changing tyranny like some of those visible in South America. The word has become as inaccurate, scientifically speak ing, as the word monarchy, which may be in reality a democracy as in England or Norway, constitutional as in Italy, or a pure despotism as in Russia. Let us ad here in this discussion to the scientifically exact word "democracy." Next let us dismiss all that concerns the relations of the States of the National Government. Federation was the great contribution of the Philadel phia convention to the science of government. The framers of the Constitution, if they did not invent the principle, applied it on such a scale and in such a way that it was practically a discovery, a venture both bold and new, as masterly as it was profoundly planned. With the love of precedents characteristic of their race they labored to find authority and example in such re mote and alien arrangements as the Achaian League and the Amphictyonio Council, but the failure of these prece dents as such was the best evidence of the novelty and magnitude of their own design. Their work in this re spect has passed through the ordeal of a great war; it has been and is to-day the subject of admiration and study on the part of foreign nations, and not even the most ardent reformer of this year of grace would think, in his efforts to restore popular government, of assail ing the Union of Sovereign States. Therefore we may pass by this great theme which was the heaviest part of the task of our ancestors. In the same way we may dismiss, much as it troubled the men of 1787, all that relates to the machinery of government, such as the electoral college, the tenure of office, the methods of electing Senators and Representa tives, and the like. These matters are important; many active thinkers in public life seek to change them, not for the better, as I believe, but none the less these pro visions concern only the mechanism of government; they do not go to the root of the matter, they do not INTRODUCTION 9 affect the fundamental principles on which the Govern ment rests. By making these omissions we come now to the vital point, which is. What kind of a government did the makers of the Constitution intend to establish and how did they mean to have it work? They were, it must be remembered, preparing a scheme of government for a people peculiarly fitted to make any system of free institutions work well. The people of the United Col onies were homogeneous. They came in the main from Great Britain and Ireland, with the addition of the Dutch in New York, of some Germans from the Pala tinate, and of a few French Huguenots, whose ability and character were as high as their numbers were rela tively small. But an overwhelming majority of the American people in 1787 were of English and Scotch descent, and they, as well as the others from other lands, were deeply imbued with all those principles of law which were the bulwarks of English liberty. In this new land men had governed themselves and there was at that moment no people on earth so fit or so experi enced in self-government as the people of the thirteen colonies. Their colonial governments were representa tive and in essence democratic. They became en tirely so when the Revolution ended and the last Eng lish governor was withdrawn. In the four New England colonies local government was in the hands of the town meetings, the purest democracies then or now extant, but it is best to remember, what the men of 1787 well knew, that these little democracies moved within fixed bounds determined by the laws of the States under which they had their being. For such a people, of such a character, with such a past and such habits and traditions, only one kind of government was possible, and that was a democracy. The makers of the Constitution called their new Govern ment a republic, and they were quite correct in doing so, for it was of necessity republican in form. But they knew that what they were establishing was a democracy. One has but to read the debates to see how constantly present that fact was to their minds. Democracy was 10 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES then a very new thing in the modern world. As a sys tem it had not been heard of, except in the fevered struggles of the Italian city republics, since the days of Rome and Greece, and although the convention knew perfectly well that they were establishing a democracy and that it was inevitable that they should do so, some of them regarded it with fear and all with a deep sense of responsibility and caution. The logical sequence as exhibited in history and as accepted by the best minds of the eighteenth century, struggling to give men a larger freedom, was democracy — anarchy — despotism. The makers of the Constitution were determined that so far as in them lay the American Republic should never take the second step, never revolve through the vicious circles which had culminated in empire in Rome, in the tyrants of the Grecian and the despots of the Italian cities, which is their turn had succumbed to the absolutism of foreign rulers. The vital question was how should this be done; how should they establish a democracy with a strong govern ment — for after their experience of the Confederation they regarded a weak government with horror — and at the same time so arranged the Government that it should be safe as well as strong and free from the peril of lapsing into an autocracy on the one hand, or into dis order and anarchy on the other? They did not try to set any barrier in the way of the popular will, but they sought to put effective obstacles in the path to sudden action which was impelled by popular passion, or pop ular whim, or by the excitement of the moment. They were the children of the "Great Rebellion" and the "Blessed Revolution" in the England of the seventeenth century, and they were steeped in the doctrine of limit ing the power of the King. But here they were dealing with a sovereign who could not be limited, for, while a king can be limited by transferring his power to the people, when the people are sovereign their powers can not be transferred to anybody. There is no one to transfer them to, and if they are taken away the dem ocracy ceases to exist and another government, funda mentally different, takes its place. INTRODUCTION 11 The makers of the Constitution not only knew that the will of the people must be supreme, but they meant to make it so. That which they also aimed to do was to make sure that it was the real will of the people which ruled and not their momentary impulse, their well-con sidered desire and determination and not the passion of the hour, the child, perhaps, of excitement and mis take inflamed by selfish appeals and terrorized by false alarms. The main object, therefore, was to make it certain that there should be abundant time for discus sion and consideration, that the public mind should be thoroughly and well informed, and that the movements of the machinery of government should not be so rapid as to cut off due deliberation. With this end in view they established with the utmost care a representative system with two chambers and an executive of large powers, including the right to veto bills. They also made the amendment of the Constitution a process at once slow and difficult, for they intended that it should be both, and indeed that it should be impracticable with out a strong, determined, and lasting public sentiment in favor of change. Finally they established the Federal judiciary, and in the Supreme Court of the United States they made an addition to the science of government second only in importance to their unequaled work in the development of the principle of federation. That great tribunal has become in the eyes of the world the most remarkable among the many remarkable solutions devised by the convention of 1787 for the settlement of the gravest governmental problems. John Marshall, with the in tellect of the jurist and the genius of the statesman, saw the possibilities contained in the words which called the court into being. By his interpretation and that of his associates and their successors the Constitution attained to flexibility and escaped the rigidity which then and now is held up as the danger and the defect of a written instrument In their hands the Constitution has been expanded to meet new conditions and new problems as they have arisen. In their hands also the Constitution has been the protection of the rights of States and the 12 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES rights of men, and laws which violated its principles and its provisions have been set aside. By making the three branches of the Government, the executive, the legislative, and the judicial, entirely separate and yet coordinate, and by establishing a rep resentative system and creating a Supreme Court of extraordinary powers, the framers of the Constitution believed that they had made democracy not only all powerful but at the same time safe and that they had secured it from gradual conversion into autocracy on the one hand and from destruction by too rapid motion and too quick response to the passions of the moment on the other. If ever men were justified by results they have been. The Constitution in its development and throughout our history has surpassed the hopes of its friends and utterly disappointed the predictions and the criticisms of its foes. Under it the United States has grown into the mighty republic we see to-day. New States have come into the Union, vast territories have been acquired, population and wealth have increased to a degree which has amazed the world, and life, lib erty, and property have been guarded beneath the flag, which is at once the symbol of the country and of the Constitution under which the nation has risen to its high success. CHAPTER I The Stamp Act Proposal in the British Parliament of a Colonial Stamp Act — Colonial Oppo sition — Passage of the Act : in favor, Sir George Grenville and Sir Charles Townshend; opposed. Gen. Henry Seymour Conway, Alderman Beckford, Mr. Jackson, Sir William Meredith, and Col. Isaac Barr^ — Tilt between Townshend and Barre — Debate on the Eesolutions of Patrick Henry against the Act in the Virginia Assembly: in favor, Mr. Henry, George Johnson and Richard Henry Lee; opposed, Peyton Randolph — Stamp Act Congress — Boycott of Stamps — Sons of Liberty — Speech of John Adams [Mass.]: "Our Blood-bought Liberty" — Daniel Dulany [Md.] on the Stamp Act Riots. THE acts of Parliament restraining the trade and manufacture of the colonies were deemed by the colonists, in some instances, a violation of their rights, and in others an unnecessary and improper sacri fice of their interest to the supposed interest of the parent country, or some other more favored part of the British empire; and they had, accordingly, been very little regarded. A distinction had been made by the colonists between what were called external and internal taxes, the former being considered as imposed for the regulation of the trade of the empire, and not for the purpose of revenue. Plans of laying internal taxes and of drawing a revenue from the colonies had been at times suggested to the ministry, and particularly to Sir Robert Walpole and Mr. William Pitt during their respective administrations, but these statesmen were too wise and sagacious to adopt them. The first attempt to draw a revenue directly from the colonies was made after the power of the French in America had been reduced. This was deemed a favor able moment to call upon the Americans for taxes to 13 14 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES assist in the payment of a debt which had been incurred, as was alleged, in a great measure for their protection against a powerful enemy, who was now no longer an object of their dread. Soon after George GrenviUe became Prime Minister, the project of imposing internal taxes in America was carried into effect. In the winter of 1764 that minister called together the agents of the colonies, and gave them notice of his intention of drawing a revenue from the colonies, saying that for this purpose he should in the ensuing session of Parliament propose a duty on stamps. Soon after this, resolutions were passed in the House of Commons continuing and making perpetual the duties on sugar, molasses, and some other articles imported into the colonies, with additions and amendments. Memorials of the Colonies These ministerial and parliamentary proceedings were soon communicated to the colonies by their agents. The colonists at once took the alarm, particularly at the contemplated stamp duty; and, instead of yielding to it, or providing an equivalent according to the suggestion of the minister, they reiterated, though in a more full and ample manner, the declarations so often made by their ancestors, that they could be taxed only in their colonial legislatures, where, and where alone, they were represented. The people of Boston, at their meeting in May, 1764, instructed their representatives to the gen eral court on this important subject. In these instruc tions (which were drawn by Samuel Adams, one of the committee appointed for that purpose), after comment ing on the sugar and molasses act, they proceed to ob serve: But our greatest apprehension is that these proceedings may be preparatory to new taxes; for, if our trade may he taxed, why not our lands? Why not the products of our lands and every thing we possess or use? This, we conceive, annihilates our charter rights to govern and tax ourselves. It strikes at our British privileges, which, as we have never forfeited, we THE STAMP ACT 15 hold in common with our fellow subjects who are natives of Britain. If taxes are laid upon us, in any shape, without our having a legal representation where they are laid, we are re duced from the character of free subjects to the state of tribu tary slaves. We, therefore, earnestly recommend it to you to use your utmost endeavors to obtain from the general court all necessary advice and instruction to our agent at this most critical junc ture. We also desire you to use your endeavors that the other colonies, having the same interests and rights with us, may add their weight to that of this province ; that by united application of all who are aggrieved all may obtain redress. This was the first public act in the colonies in oppo sition to the ministerial plans of drawing a revenue di rectly from America; and it contained the first sugges tion of the propriety of that mutual understanding and correspondence among the colonies which laid the foun dation of their future confederacy. The House of Representatives of Massachusetts, in June following, declared: That the sole right of giving and granting the money of the people of that province was vested in them, or their representa tives ; and that the imposition of duties and taxes by the Parlia ment of Great Britain upon a people not represented in the House of Commons is absolutely irreconcilable with their rights. That no man can justly take the property of another without his consent; upon which original principles the power of making laws for levying taxes, one of the main pillars of the British constitution, is evidently founded. The same sentiments are expressed, though in stronger language, in their letter of instructions to their agent : If the colonists are to be taxed at pleasure without any repre sentatives in Parliament, what will there be to distinguish them, in point of liberty, from the subjects of the most absolute prince ? If we are to be taxed, at pleasure, without our consent, will it be any consolation to us that we are to be assessed by an hundred instead of one? If we are not represented we are slaves. 16 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES The House at the same time appointed a committee to sit in the recess of the court, to write to the other colonies requesting them to join in applying for a repeal of the sugar act, and in preventing the passage of the act laying stamp duties, or any other taxes, on the American provinces. In the course of the year 1764 petitions to the King and both houses of Parliament were prepared in many of the colonies, and sent to their agents. The petitions of the Assembly of New York were drawn with great ability, and breathed a spirit more bold and decided than those from any other colony. An exemption from the burden of ungranted and involun tary taxes must be the grand principle of every free state. With out such a right vested in themselves, exclusive of all others, there can be no liberty, no happiness, no security ; it is insepara ble from the very idea of property; for who can call that his own which may be taken away at the pleasure of another? and so evidently does this appear to be the natural right of mankind, that even conquered tributary states, though subject to the pay ment of a fixed periodical tribute, never were reduced to so ab solute and forlorn a condition as to yield to all the burdens which their conquerors might, at any future time, think fit to impose. The tribute paid, the debt was discharged ; and the re- maifider they would call their own. And if conquered vassals, upon the principle of mutual jus tice, may claim a freedom from assessments, unbounded and un- assented to, without which they would suffer the loss of every thing, and life itself become intolerable, with how much pro priety and boldness may we proceed to inform the Commons of Great Britain, who to their distinguished honor in all ages asserted the liberties of mankind, that the people of this colony nobly disdain the thought of claiming that exemption as a privi lege. They found it on a basis more honorable, solid, and stable ; they challenge it and glory in it, as their right. That right their ancestors enjoyed in Great Britain and Ireland, their de scendants returning to these kingdoms enjoy it again, and that it may be exercised by his Majesty's subjects at home, and justly denied to those who submitted to poverty, barbarian wars, loss of blood, loss of money, personal fatigues and ten thousand un utterable hardships, to enlarge the trade, wealth and dominion of the nation ; or, to speak with the most incontestable modesty. THE STAMP ACT 17 that when, as subjects, all have equal merits, a fatal, nay the most odious, discrimination should nevertheless be made between them, no sophistry can recommend to the sober impartial de cision of common sense. While the Assembly of New York acknowledged that Parliament had a right to regulate the trade ot the colo nies, they declared that, in doing this, they had not the right of imposing duties for the purpose of revenue. On this subject, they say to the House of Commons with equal boldness: But a freedom to drive all kinds of trafiic, in subordination to, and not inconsistent vnth, the British trade, and an exemp tion from all duties in such a course of commerce, is humbly claimed by the colonies as the most essential of all the rights to which they are entitled as colonists and connected in the com mon bond of liberty with the free sons of Great Britain. For, with submission, since all impositions, whether they be internal taxes, or duties paid for what we consume, equally diminish the estates upon which they are charged, what avails it to any peo ple by which of them they are impoverished? Everything will be given to preserve life ; and, though there is a diversity in the means, yet the whole wealth of a country may be as effectually drawn off by the exaction of duties as by any other tax upon their estates. In conclusion the Assembly declare : They have no desire to derogate from the power of the Par liament of Great Britain ; but they cannot avoid deprecating the loss of such rights as they have hitherto enjoyed, rights estab lished in the first dawn of our constitution, founded upon the most substantial reasons, confirmed by invariable usage, con ducive to the best ends ; never abused to bad purposes, and with the loss of which, liberty, property, and all the benefits of life tumble into insecurity and ruin ; rights, the deprivation of which will dispirit the people, abate their industry, discourage trade, introduce discord, poverty and slavery ; or, by depopulating the colonies, turn a vast, fertile, prosperous region into a dreary wilderness, impoverish Great Britain, and shake the power and independence of the most opulent and flourishing empire in the world. 18 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES While the colonists in their various petitions denied the right of Parliament to tax them without their con sent, they expressed their willingness to grant aids to the Crown according to their abilities through their own legislatures, whenever such aids should be required in the usual constitutional mode. As all aids granted to the Crown, agreeably to the British constitution, were the free gifts of the people, the colonists claimed the right of judging as to the amount and manner of these gifts; and were, therefore, unwilling indirectly to ac knowledge or countenance the right of Parliament to tax them, by proposing any substitute for the stamp duty, which substitute Parliament might accept or re ject at pleasure. In the winter of 1764-1765 Dr. Benjamin Franklin and other agents of the colonies had a conference with Mr. Grenville on the subject of the stamp duty. They informed the minister of the great opposition to the pro posed tax in America, and most earnestly entreated him that, if money must be drawn from the colonies by taxes, to leave it with the colonists to raise it among them selves in such manner as they should think proper and best adapted to their circumstances and abilities. Debate Between Townshend and Babee When the bill for laying the contemplated duties was brought before the House of Commons, it met with strong opposition. Though Mr. Pitt was absent on this occasion, confined to his bed by sickness, and General Conway and Alderman Beckford were the only persons in the House who opposed the bill on the ground that Parliament had no right to tax the colonies. Col. Isaac Barre, Mr. Jackson, Sir William Meredith, and others were against it on the ground of expediency, alleging generally that it was to the last degree impolitic, as well as unjust, for Great Britain to impose direct taxes upon the colonists while she retained the monopoly of their commerce. Sir George Grenville and Sir Charles Townshend were the principal supporters of the bill. Mr. Townshend, in the conclusion of a speech in THE STAMP ACT 19 favor of the measure delivered on February 7, 1765, ex claimed, "And now these Americans, planted by our care, nourished up by our indulgence, until they are grown to a degree of strength and importance, and pro tected by our arms — will they grudge to contribute their mite to relieve us from the heavy burden we lie under?" To this Col. Barre, in a style and manner peculiar to himself, instantly replied: They planted iy your care! No; your oppressions planted them in America ! They fled from your tyranny to a then uncul tivated and inhospitable country, where they exposed themselves to almost all the hardships to which human nature is liable; and, among others, to the cruelties of a savage foe, the most subtle, and I will take upon me to say the most formidable, of any people upon the face of the earth; and yet, actuated by principles of true English liberty, our American brethren met all the hardships with pleasure, compared with those they suf fered in their own country from the hands of those that should have been their friends. They nourished iy your indulgence! They grew by your neglect of them. As soon as you began to take care about them ; that care was exercised in sending persons to rule them in one department and another, who were deputies of deputies to some members of this house, sent to prey upon them ; men whose be havior, on many occasions, has caused the blood of those sons of liberty to recoil within them; men promoted to the highest seats of justice, some [who], to my knowledge, were glad, by going to a foreign country, to escape being brought to a bar of justice in their own. They protected by your arms! They have nobly taken up arms in your defence, have exerted their valor, amidst their con stant and laborious industry, for the defence of a country whose frontier was drenched in blood, while its interior parts yielded all its little savings to your emolument. And, believe me, that same spirit of freedom which actuated that people at first wiU accompany them still. But prudence forbids me to explain myself further. God knows, I do not at this time speak from party heat. However superior to me in general knowledge and experience the respectable body of this house may be, yet I claim to know more of America than most of you, having seen and been con versant with that country. The people, I believe, are as truly loyal as any subjects the King has; but [they are] a people jealous 20 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES of their liberties, and who will vindicate them if ever they should be violated— but the subject is too delicate, I will say no more. Rejection of Petitions The House was very forcibly struck with these senti ments, thrown out without premeditation, and for a while sat amazed and without answering a word. But when the petitions from Virginia, Connecticut, and South Carolina were offered in opposition to the bill, the House refused to receive them ; in the first place be cause they questioned or denied the right of Parliament to pass the bill ; and in the second place because it was contrary to an old standing rule of the House, "that no petition should be received against a money bill." The majority against receiving the petitions was very large, and those from the other colonies were not offered. The petition from New York was expressed in such strong language that no member of the House could be pre vailed upon to present it. The bill passed the House 250 to 50; was adopted in the House of Lords with great unanimity, and on the 22d of March, 1765, received the royal sanction. The act imposed duties on most of the instruments used in judicial and commercial proceedings, and, in deed, in almost all the ordinary transactions in the colo nies ; nor were pamphlets, newspapers and almanacs ex cepted. The literature of the colonists did not escape the notice of the ministers. A duty of two pounds ster ling was required for every degree conferred by semi naries of learning. The ministry affected to believe, and indeed declared, that the act embraced so many objects that it would "execute itself." Apprehensive, however, of opposition, the government passed a bill during the same session authorizing the quartering of the troops in the colonies, and directing the assemblies to furnish them with certain articles of provisions not before usu ally required. During the pendency of this bill it was proposed that the troops might be quartered in private houses. This, however, was too palpable and flagrant a violation of the sacred rights of individuals to be THE COUNCIL OF THE RULERS AND THE ELDERS AGAINST THE TRIBE OP GREAT AMERICANITES 21 22 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES adopted, and the proposition was finally given up. No act of the parent country ever excited such universal alarm in the colonies as this. The colonists saw and felt that the act was not only a violation of their rights, but a fatal blow aimed at the future peace and pros perity of their country. American Opposition to the Act The assembly of Virginia was the first public body that met after the news of the Stamp Act reached Amer ica. Those who had heretofore taken the lead in the popular branch of that body, the House of Burgesses, seemed unwilling to approach the subject. It was not until near the close of the session, about the first of May, that an action was taken regarding the act. Then it was that a young lawyer from Hanover County, who had taken into his confidence only one or two of his colleagues, arose and introduced a set of reso lutions, the boldness of which struck the timid assem bly with consternation, although at the same time it ex cited their awe and admiration. The speaker was Patrick Henry, who, though he was reputed the most eloquent speaker in the colony, had hitherto not distinguished himself in the assembly. Resolutions of Patrick Heney The following are the resolutions which Mr. Henry introduced in the House of Burgesses on the Stamp Act: Whereas the honorable House of Commons in England have of late drawn into question how far the General Assembly of this colony hath power to make laws for laying taxes and im posing duties, payable by the people of this His Majesty's most ancient colony; for settling and ascertaining the same to all future times, the House of Burgesses of the present General Assembly have come to the following resolutions. Resolved, that the first adventurers and settlers of this. His Majesty's colony and dominion, brought with them, and trans mitted to their posterity and all other His Majesty's subjects since inhabiting in this His Majesty's said colony, all the privi- THE STAMP ACT 23 leges, franchises, and immunities that have, at any time, been held, enjoyed, and possessed by the people of Great Britain. Resolved, that by two royal charters granted by King James I, the colonists aforesaid are declared entitled to all the privi leges, liberties, and immunities of denizens and natural born subjects, to aU intents and purposes as if they had been abiding and born within the realm of England. Resolved, that the taxation of the people by themselves, or by persons chosen by themselves to represent them, who can only know what taxes the people are able to bear, and the easiest mode of raising them, and are equally affected by such taxes themselves, is the distinguishing characteristic of British free dom, and without which the ancient constitution cannot subsist. Resolved, that His Majesty's liege people of this most an cient colony have uninterruptedly enjoyed the right of being thus governed by their own Assembly, in the article of their taxes and internal police; and that the same hath never been forfeited, or any other way given up, but hath been recognized by the King and people of Great Britain. Resolved, therefore, that the General Assembly of this colony have the sole right and power to lay taxes and impositions upon the inhabitants of this colony; and that every attempt to vest such power in any person or persons whatever, other than the General Assembly aforesaid, has a manifest tendency to destroy British as well as American freedom. The above resolutions were found among the papers of Patrick Henry, after his death, sealed up, and with the following indorsement, "Inclosed are the resolutions of the Virginia assembly, concerning the Stamp Act. Let my executors open this paper. ' ' ^ Chief Justice John Marshall, in his "Life of Wash ington," gives the resolutions which received the sanc tion of the Assembly with the third resolution omitted, and with slight differences in the phraseology of the others. Judge Marshall adds, "Such were the resolutions as agreed to by that part of the Assembly which was most timid. The following resolutions were also introduced by Mr. Henry, and passed the committee, but were dis agreed to in the House: "Resolved, that His Majesty's liege people, the inhabitants ^Life of Patrick Henry, by William Wirt, p. 50. 24 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES of this colony, are not bound to yield obedience to any law or ordinance whatsoever, designed to impose any taxation whatso ever upon them, other than the laws and ordinances of the Gen eral Assembly aforesaid. "Resolved, that any person who shall, by speaking or writ ing, maintain that any person or persons, other than the Gen eral Assembly of this colony, have any right or power to lay any taxation whatsoever on the people here, shall be deemed an enemy to this His Majesty's colony." Debate on the Resolutions Some of the resolutions offered by Mr. Henry occa sioned a most violent and, as has been said by one who was present, a "most bloody" debate in that house. They were seconded by George Johnson, who was an able constitutional lawyer, and opposed by those who had before taken the lead, because not sufficiently concilia tory. The bold and powerful eloquence of the mover, however, prevailed over all opposition, though the most objectionable were carried by a single vote only. Mr. Henry did not hesitate to declare that the act imposing internal duties on the colonists was tyrannical, and that the king in assenting to it had acted the part of a tyrant ; and when, in the heat of debate, alluding to the fate of other tyrants, he exclaimed, "Caesar had his Brutus, Charles I his Cromwell, and George III" — he was interrupted by the speaker and others, with the cry of "Treason!" Mr. Henry, pausing for a moment, and fixing his eye on the speaker, deliberately concluded — "may profit by their example; if this be treason, make the most of it." Henry was strongly supported in this debate by Rich ard Henry Lee. Says a historian of the time, "People knew not which most to admire: the overwhelming might of Henry, or the resistless persuasion of Lee." Mr. Lee also wrote many powerful articles upon the Stamp Act to the newspapers, as well as letters to patri ots in the other colonies counseling a union of interests. In a letter to John Dickinson, dated July 25, 1768, on Parliament's declaration of its supremacy over the colo nies, he wrote: THE STAMP ACT 25 To prevent the success of this unjust system, an union of counsel and action among all the colonies is undoubtedly neces sary. The politician of Italy delivered the result of reason and experience when he proposed the way to conquest, by division. How to effect this union, in the wisest and firmest manner, per haps, time and much reflection only can show. But well to un derstand each other, and timely to be informed of what passes both here and in Great Britain, it would seem that not only select committees should be appointed by all the colonies, but that a private correspondence should be conducted between the lovers of liberty in every province. Peyton Randolph was one of those who opposed Henry's resolutions as precipitate. Indeed, he was greatly alarmed at their probable effect in angering Parliament. As they were leaving the hall, Jefferson heard him say, referring to the closeness of the vote by which the resolutions were carried, "By God, I would have given five hundred guineas for a single vote ! ' ' The proceedings of Virginia were immediately circu lated through the colonies, and roused them to action. The various assemblies, at the suggestion of Massachu setts, determined upon a Stamp Act congress of the colonies, to be held at New York on the first Tuesday of October, 1765. The Stamp Act Congress This was the first general meeting of the colonies for the purpose of considering their rights and privileges, and obtaining a redress for the violation of them on the part of the parent country. The commissioners were generally instructed to pre pare suitable petitions and representations to the King and Parliament on the subject of the late acts regarding the colonies, and to pray for relief. After having duly organized, and resolved that the commissioners of each colony should have "one voice" only in determining questions that should arise, this congress, on the 8th of October, took into consideration ' ' the rights and privileges of the colonists, with the sev eral inconveniences and hardships to which they were 26 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES and must be subjected by the Stamp Act and other late acts of Parliament." This important subject was under consideration until the 19th of October, when a declara tion of the rights and grievances of the colonists was agreed to. In this declaration, consisting of fourteen articles, after ac knowledging their allegiance to the King, and "all due subordi nation" to Parliament, they, among other things, assert and declare that the colonists are entitled to all the inherent rights and liberties of His Majesty's natural born subjects in the kingdom of Great Britain ; and that it is inseparably essen tial to the freedom of a people, and the undoubted right of Englishmen, that no taxes be imposed on them but with their own consent, given personally or by their representatives — that the colonists are not and, from their local circumstances, cannot be represented in the House of Commons in Great Britain — that the only representatives of the people of these colonies are persons chosen therein by themselves, and that no taxes ever have been or can be constitutionally imposed on them but by their respective legislatures — that, all supplies to the Crown be ing the free gifts of the people, it is unreasonable and incon sistent with the principles and spirit of the British constitution for the people of Great Britain to grant to His Majesty the property of the colonists — that trial by jury is the inherent and invaluable right of every British subject in the colonies, and that the Stamp Act, and other acts extending the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court beyond its ancient limits, "have a manifest tendency to subvert the rights and liberties of the colonists. ' ' They also declared that the restrictions imposed by several late acts of Parliament on the trade of the colonies were burden some, and would render them unable to purchase the manufac tures of Great Britain; and that it was the indispensable duty of the colonies to the best of sovereigns, to the mother country, and to themselves, to endeavor by a loyal and dutiful address to the King and humble application to Parliament to procure a repeal of the act imposing stamp duties, of all parts of such acts as extend the admiralty jurisdiction, and of the other late acts for the restriction of American commerce. This declaration was drafted by John Cruger, Mayor of New York, who was one of the delegates. This congress then prepared an address to the King, and a petition to each house of Parliament, drawn by THE STAMP ACT 27 committees appointed for that purpose. The committee to draw an address to the King were Robert R. Living ston, William S. Johnson, and William Murdock; to draw the petition to the House of Lords were John Rut ledge, Edward Tilghman, and Philip Livingston; and to draw the petition to the House of Commons were Thomas Lynch, James Otis, and Thomas McKean. These state papers evince the talents as well as firm ness, tempered with wisdom and moderation, of this first American congress; composed as it was of some of the most distinguished statesmen from the several colonies therein represented. Address to the King In their address to the King, drawn up principally by Mr. Johnson from Connecticut, one of the ablest law yers and most accomplished scholars in America, the congress remind him that : Animated with the spirit of liberty, encouraged by his prede cessors, and confiding in the public faith, their ancestors, for the enjoyment of all the rights essential to freedom, emigrated to the American continent; and in the midst of innumerable dangers and difficulties, and at a great expense of their blood and treasure, added "these vast and valuable dominions to the empire of Great Britain." That, for the enjoyment of their rights and privileges, governments were early formed in the colonies with full powers of legislation, agreeably to the princi ples of the English constitution; and that, under these govern ments, the liberties, thus vested in their ancestors, and transmit ted to their posterity, have been exercised and enjoyed, and by the inestimable blessings thereof, under the favor of Almighty God, the inhospitable deserts of America have been converted into flourishing countries. Science, humanity, and the knowl edge of divine truths have been diffused through remote regions of ignorance, infidelity, and barbarism; the number of British subjects wonderfully increased ; and the wealth and power of Great Britain proportionally augmented. That, by means of these settlements, and the unparalleled success of His Majesty's arms, a foundation was now laid for rendering the British em pire the most extensive and powerful of any recorded in history. "Our connection," they add, "with this empire we esteem our greatest happiness and security, and humbly conceive it may 28 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES now be so established by your royal wisdom as to endure to the latest period of time. This, with most humble submission to Your Majesty, we apprehend will be most effectually accom plished by fixhig the pillars thereof on liberty and justice, and securing the inherent rights and liberties of your subjects here, upon the principles of the English constitution." To this con stitution, they say, "these two principles are essential, the right of your faithful subjects freely to grant to Your Majesty such aids as are required for the support of your government over them and other public exigencies, and trial by their peers. By the one they are secured from unreasonable impositions, and by the other from arbitrary decisions of executive power. The continuance of these blessings to the inhabitants of America we ardently implore as absolutely necessary to unite the several parts of your widely extended dominions in that harmony so essential for the preservation of the whole." Petition to Parliament In their petition to the House of Commons they claim the same rights as in their address to the King; and they complain not only of the act imposing the stamp duties, but of several other acts imposing duties in the colonies, and laying their trade under burdensome restrictions. They stated "that the remote situation and other circum stances of the colonies render it impracticable that they should be represented but in their respective subordinate legislatures"; and they "humbly conceived that the Parliament, adhering strictly to the principles of the constitution, have never hitherto taxed any but those who were actually therein represented ; for this reason, we humbly apprehend they never have taxed Ire land, or any other of the subjects without the realm. "But were it ever so clear," they add, "that the colonies might in law be represented in the honorable House of Com mons, yet we conceive that very good reasons, from incon venience, from the principles of true policy, and from the spirit of the British constitution, may be adduced to show that it would be for the real interest of Great Britain, as well as her colonies, that the late regulations should be rescinded, and the several acts of Parliament imposing duties and taxes on the colonies, and extending the jurisdiction of the courts of admi ralty here beyond their ancient limits, should be repealed. THE STAMP ACT 29 "We shall not attempt," they say, "a minute detail of all the reasons which the wisdom of the honorable house may sug gest on this occasion, but would humbly submit the following particulars to their consideration : ' ' That money is already become very scarce in these colonies, and is still decreasing by the necessary exportation of specie from the continent for the discharge of our debts to British merchants. r:n p is. 'h.^,^^:^. .4-; THE DEPLORABLE STATE OF AMERICA, OK SC H GOVERNMENT E«f erring to the secret influence of the S[cottis]h Lord Bute over the British iXinistry From ttte collection of the New York Historical Society. ' ' That an immensely heavy debt is yet due from the colonies for British manufactures, and that they are still burdened with taxes to discharge the arrearages due for aids granted by them in the late war. "That the balance of trade wiU ever be much against the colonies, and in favor of Great Britain, while we consume her manufactures, the demand for which must ever increase in pro portion to the number of inhabitants settled here with the means of purchasing them. We therefore humbly conceive it to be the interest of Great Britain to increase, rather than diminish, these means, as the profits of aU the trade of the colonies ultimately center there to pay for her manufactures, as we are not allowed to purchase elsewhere ; and by the consumption of which, at the advanced prices the British taxes oblige the makers and ven ders to put on them, we eventually contribute very largely to the revenues of the crown. "That from the nature of American business, the multi- 30 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES plicity of suits and papers used in matters of small value, in a country where freeholds are so minutely divided, and property so frequently transferred, a stamp duty must ever be very bur densome and unequal. "That it is extremely improbable that the honorable House of Commons should, at any time, be thoroughly acquainted with our condition, and all facts requisite to a just and equal taxa tion of the colonies. "It is also humbly submitted, whether there be not a ma terial distinction in reason and sound policy, at least, between the necessary exercise of parliamentary jurisdiction in general acts, for the amendment of the common law, and the regulation of trade and commerce through the whole empire, and the exer cise of that jurisdiction, by imposing taxes on the colonies. ' ' With the exception of the foregoing petitions, ad dress and general declaration of rights, little is known or has been collected with respect to the proceedings of this first American congress. But James Otis of Massachusetts is remembered to have been particularly distinguished for his eloquence and thorough knowledge of American rights. In the margin of Ramsay's "His tory of the American Revolution," Mr. Rodney, one of the commissioners from Delaware, made the following entry, * ' The historian passes by this congress in a very light manner. It was this congress in which James Otis, of Boston, displayed that light and knowledge of the interest of America, which, shining like a sun, lit up those stars which shone on this subject afterward." This congress adjourned on the 25th of October, and their proceedings were approved by all the members ex cept Mr. Ruggles of Massachusetts, and Mr. Ogden of New Jersey, both of whom left New York without sign ing the address and petitions. The commissioners from South Carolina and Connecticut were limited by their instructions to make report to their respective legisla tures, and the committee of New York, who had been admitted as members, had authority to apply to the King or Parliament. The address and petitions were, therefore, signed by the commissioners from only six of the colonies. The proceedings of the congress, however, were afterward sanctioned and approved by the assem- THE STAMP ACT 31 blies not only of South Carolina, Connecticut and New York, but of the colonies not therein represented. Protests of Colonial Legislatures The subject of the stamp duties was not left with the congress alone ; it was taken up by the colonial legis latures, either before or subsequent to the meeting of that body. The Legislature of Connecticut, in their instructions to their agent at London, after declaring the act laying internal duties to be "an infringement of the essential liberties of the colonists," proceed to say, "we can by no means be content that you should give up the matter of right, but must beg you would on all proper occasions claim and firmly insist on the exclusive right of the colo nies to tax themselves, and the privilege of trial by jury ; and to maintain these principles in the most effectual manner possible as what wc can never recede from." Opposition to the stamp duties was not confined to legislative resolutions and declarations. Numerous in dividuals in every part of the country held meetings, and in bold and decided language expressed, not only their detestation of the act, but their unalterable de termination that the same should never be carried into effect. Address of Plymouth, Mass. The instructions given to their representative in the assembly by the inhabitants of the town of Plymouth, the immediate descendants of the Pilgrims who first planted New England, will be read with peculiar in terest. After expressing their esteem for the British constitution, and stating their grievances, they say to their representative, Mr. Foster, "You, sir, represent a people who are not only de scended from the first settlers of this country, but inhabit the very spot they first possessed. Here was first laid the founda tion of the British empire in this part of America, which, from a very small beginning, has increased and spread in a manner very surprising, and almost incredible ; especially when we con sider that all this has been effected without the aid and assist- 32 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES ance of any power on earth; that we have defended, protected, and saved ourselves against the incursions and cruelty of sav ages, and the subtilty and inhumanity of our inveterate and natural enemies the French ; and all this without the appropria tion of any tax by stamps, or stamp act laid upon our fellow subjects, in any part of the King's dominions, for defraying the expenses thereof. "This place, sir, was at first the asylum of liberty, and, we hope, will ever be preserved sacred to it ; though it was then no more than a forlorn wilderness, inhabited by savage men and beasts. To this place our fathers (whose memory be revered), possessed of the principles of liberty in their purity, disdaining slavery, fled to enjoy those privileges which they had an un doubted right to, but were deprived of by the hands of violence and oppression in their native country. We, sir, their posterity, the freeholders and other inhabitants of this town, legally as sembled for that purpose, possessed of the same sentiments, and retainrag the same ardor for liberty, think it our indispensable duty on this occasion to express to you these our sentiments of the Stamp Act and its fatal consequences to this country, and to enjoin upon you, as you regard not only the welfare, but the very being of this people, that you (consistent with our al legiance to the King and relation to the government of Great Britain), disregarding all proposals for that purpose, exert all your power and influence in relation to the Stamp Act, at least, until we hear the success of our petitions for relief. We like wise, to avoid disgracing our ancestors, as well as the reproaches of our own consciences, and the curses of posterity, recommend it to you to obtain, if possible, in the honorable House of Repre sentatives of the people a full and explicit assertion of our rights, and to have the same entered on their public records that all generations yet to come may be convinced that we have not only a just sense of our liberties, but that we never (with sub mission to divine Providence) will be slaves to any power on earth; and, as we have at all times an abhorrence of tumults and disorders, we think ourselves happy in being at present un der no apprehensions of any, and in having good and wholesome laws, sufficient to preserve the peace of the province in all future times, unless provoked by some imprudent measures ; so we think it by no means advisable for you to interest yourself in the pro tection of stamp papers or stamp officers." THE STAMP ACT 33 Boycott of the Stamps Many of the resolutions adopted at these meetings of the citizens were of an inflammatory character. The following declaration of the freemen of the County of Essex, in New Jersey, and of Talbot County, in Maryland, will serve, among thousands of others of a similar cast, to show the spirit then universally pre vailing in America against stamps and stamp officers. After declaring the act itself unconstitutional, they add, "that they will detest, abhor, and hold in contempt all and every person or persons who shall merely accept of any em ployment or ofiice relating to the said Stamp Act, or shall take any shelter or advantage of the same, and all and every stamp- pimp, informer, and encourager of the execution of said act; and that they will have no communication with any such per sons, unless it be to inform them of their vileness. ' ' The merchants of New York, on the 31st of October, nobly sacrificed their interest on this occasion by enter ing into an agreement or assocation to have no goods shipped from Great Britain, unless the Stamp Act should be repealed. The merchants of Philadelphia and Boston soon after joined those of New York in similar associations. Another association of a different and, indeed, of a novel character was in December entered into by some of the citizens of New York and Connecticut, who were called the "Sons of Liberty," the object of which asso ciation was in reality to prevent, by force if necessary, the execution of the act, under the pretence of maintain ing unimpaired the principles of the British constitu tion, of which they declared the act to be a violation. In this association the act is thus noticed: And whereas, a certain pamphlet has appeared in America in the form of an act of Parliament called and known by the name of the Stamp Act, but has never been legally published or introduced, neither can it, as it would immediately deprive them of the most invaluable part of the British constitution, viz. the trial by juries, and the most just mode of taxation in the world, that is of taxing themselves; rights that every British 34 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES subject becomes heir to as soon as born. For the preservation of which and every part of the British constitution, they do reciprocally resolve and determine to march with the utmost dispatch, at their own proper cost and expense, on the first proper notice (which must be signified to them by at least six of the Sons of Liberty) with their whole force, if required and it can be spared, to the relief of those that shall, are, or may be in danger from the Stamp Act, or its aiders or abettors, or anything relative to it, on account of anything that may have been done in opposition to its obtaining; and they do mutually and most fervently recommend it to each other to be vigilant in watching all those who, from the nature of their offices, voca tions, or dispositions, may be the most likely to introduce the use of stamped paper, to the total subversion of the British con stitution and American liberty; and the same, when discovered, immediately to advise each other of, let them be of what rank or condition soever ; and they also do agree that they will mutu ally, and to the utmost of their power, by all just ways and means, endeavor to bring all such betrayers of their country to the most condign punishment; and further they do mutually resolve to defend the liberty of the press in their respective col onies from all unlawful violations and impediments whatever on account of said act, as the only means (under divine Provi dence) of preserving their lives, liberties and fortunes, and the same, in regard to the judges, clerks, attorneys, etc., that shall proceed without any regard to the Stamp Act, from all pains, fines, mulcts, penalties, or any other molestation whatever ; and, finally, that they will, to the utmost of their power, endeavor to bring about, accomplish, and perfect the like association with all the colonies on the continent, for the like salutary purposes and no other. This singular association was afterward extended to some of the other colonies, and but for a repeal of the act would, no doubt, have been generally adopted. These various associations and resolutions were en couraged and supported, and the spirit of the people kept alive, by the numerous publications in the news papers in America, most of which were enlisted in favor of the colonists in this controversy. The pens of American patriots in favor of liberty and in opposition to the claim of Parliament during the year 1765 were not confined to newspaper publications. THE STAMP ACT 35 An "Essay on the Canon and Feudal Law," by John Adams; "Considerations on the Propriety of 'Imposing Taxes on the British Colonies, for the Purpose of Rais ing a Revenue by Act of Parliament," by Daniel Du lany of Maryland, and "An Enquiry into the Rights of the British Colonies," by Theodoric Bland of Virginia, are most notable. "OuB Blood-Bought Liberty" JOHN ADAMS "Be it remembered," says Mr. Adams, "that liberty must, at all hazards, be supported ! We have a right to it, derived from our Maker! but, if we had not, our fathers have earned it and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood. Is there not something extremely fal lacious, ' ' he adds, ' ' in the commonplace images of mother coun try and children colonies? Are we children of Great Britain, any more than the cities of London, Exeter, and Bath? Are we not brethren and fellow subjects with those in Britain, only under a somewhat different method of legislation, and a totally different method of taxation? But, admitting we are children, have not children a right to complain when their parents are attempting to break their limbs, to administer poison, or to sell them to enemies for slaves?" "Let the pulpit," he concludes, "resound with the doctrines and sentiments of religious liberty. Let us hear the danger of thraldom to our consciences from ignorance, extreme poverty, and dependence, in short from civil and political slavery. Let us see delineated before us the true map of man. Let us hear the dignity of his nature, and the noble rank he holds among the works of God! that consentiag to slavery is a sacrilegious breach of trust, is offensive in the sight of God as it is deroga tory from our honor, our interest, or happiness; and that God Almighty has promulgated from heaven liberty, peace, and good will to man. "Let the bar proclaim, 'the laws, the rights, the generous plan of power' delivered down from reipote antiquity; inform the world of the mighty struggles and numberless sacrifices, made by our ancestors, in the defense of freedom. Let it be known that British liberties are not the grants of princes or par liaments, but original rights, conditions of original contracts, coequal with prerogative and coeval with government. That 36 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES many of our rights are inherent and essential, agreed on as maxims, and established as preliminaries, even before a parlia ment existed: Let them search for the foundation of British laws and government in the frame of human nature, in the constitution of the intellectual and moral world. There let us see that truth, liberty, justice, and benevolence are its everlast ing basis; and that, if these could be removed, the superstruc ture is overthrown of course." After stating that the "encroachments upon liberty, in the reigns of James I and Charles I, first turned the attention of learned men to government, and produced the greatest number of statesmen ever seen in any age or nation," Mr. Adams says, "the prospect now before us in America ought in the same man ner to engage the attention of every man of learning to matters of power and right, that we may be neither led nor driven blindfolded to irretrievable destruction. Nothing less than this seems to have been meditated for us by somebody or other in Great Britain. There seems to be a direct and formal design on foot to enslave all America. This, however, must be done by degrees. The first step that is intended seems to be an entire subversion of the whole system of our fathers by the introduc tion of the canon and feudal law into America. The canon and feudal systems, though greatly mutilated in England, are not yet destroyed. Like the temples and palaces in which the great contrivers of them were once worshiped and inhabited, they ex ist in ruins; and much of the domineering spirit of them still remains. The designs and labor of a certain society to intro duce the former of them into America have been well exposed to the public by a writer of great abilities; and the further at tempts to the same purpose, that may be made by that society, or by the ministry or Parliament, I leave to the conjecture of the thoughtful. But it seems very manifest from the Stamp Act itself that a design is formed to strip us, in a great measure, of the means of knowledge, by loading the press, the colleges, and even an almanac and a newspaper, with restraints and du ties; and to introduce the inequalities and dependencies of the feudal system by taking from the poorer sort of people all their little subsistence, and conferring it on a set of stamp officers, distributors and their deputies." Dulany on the Act Mr. Dulany and Mr. Bland were among the most distinguished lawyers and statesmen in America. The THE STAMP ACT 37 former not only proved the illegality of tl i Stamp Act, and the evils the Americans must experience from the new parliamentary regulations of the colonial trade, whereby they were rendered unable to pay for the large balances always due for English manufactures; but pointed out a remedy for these evils in future. The remedy suggested was domestic industry, which, he said, would render the American colonists less dependent on the mother country for articles either of necessity or luxury. "Let the manufacture of America," says this enlightened statesman, "be the symbol of dignity, the badge of virtue, and it will soon break the fetters of distress. A garment of linsey- woolsej^ when made the distinction of patriotism, is more honor able, and attractive of respect and veneration, than all the pag eantry, and the robes, and the plumes, and the diadem of an emperor without it. Let the emulation be, not in the richness and variety of foreign productions, but in the improvement and perfeotion of our own — let it be demonstrated that the subjects of the British empire in Europe and America are the same, that the hardships of the latter will ever recoil on the former. "In theory it is supposed that each is equally important to the other, that all partake of the adversity and depression of any. The theory is just, and time will certainly establish it ; but if another principle should be hereafter adopted in practice, and a violation deliberate, cruel, ungrateful, and attended with every circumstance of provocation be offered to our fundamental rights, why should we leave it to the slow advances of time (which may be the great hope and reliance, probably, of the au thors of the injury, whose view it may be to accomplish their selfish purposes in the interval) to prove what might be demon strated immediately ? Instead of moping, and puling, and whin ing, to excite compassion ; in such a situation, we ought with spirit, and vigor, and alacrity to bid defiance to tyranny by ex posing its impotence, by making it as contemptible as it would be detestable. By a vigorous application to manufactures, the consequence of oppression in the colonies to the inhabitants of Great Britain would strike home, and immediately. None could mistake it. Craft and subtilty would not be able to impose on the most ignorant and credulous ; for, if any should be so weak of sight as not to see, they would not be so callous as not to feel it. Such conduct would be the most dutiful and beneficial to the mother country. It would point out the distemper when the 38 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES remedy might be easy, and a cure at once effected by a simple alteration of regimen. ' ' ^ Bland's book, published in 1766, was the first writ ten on colonial rights. He was regarded as an authority on the subject, his knowledge of Virginia matters in par ticular gaining him the title of the "Virginia An tiquary. ' ' A statement of the public sentiment and feeling in America, in relation to the Stamp Act, was, in a variety of ways, communicated to the ministry and people of Great Britain. A person high in office, in New York, in November of this year, writes to a nobleman in Eng land, "Depend upon it, they will suffer no man to exe cute any law to raise internal taxes, unimposed by their own assemblies. None of the distributors durst act; and that man's heart must be fortified with tenfold steel who ventures to approve the doctrine that the Parliament hath a right to give away the estates of the colonists without their consent. ' ' ^ Stamp Act Riots The indignation of the people against the act, unfor tunately, was not confined to resolutions and agree ments ; but in some of the colonies broke out into acts of violence and unjustifiable outrage against the persons and property of its supporters. These outrages were carried to the greatest length in Boston. The house of Chief -Justice Thomas Hutchinson was attacked in a riotous manner, his furniture and pictures destroyed, and his valuable library and manuscripts, in a wanton manner, either burnt or thrown into the street. Mr. Hutchinson was very obnoxious to the people of Massa chusetts not only for favoring the execution of the Stamp Act, but because he was instrumental in enforcing the acts of trade. The houses of several revenue officers, among them that of Mr. Oliver, the distributor of stamps, were also injured. These riotous acts were, however, ^Nevertheless Dulany became a loyalist when the Eevolution that he bad prophesied might result from the Stamp Act finally came to pass. ' Adolphus's History of England; appendix 5. THE STAMP ACT 39 disapproved by the great mass of the people of Boston, and of the province generally. Such was the general determination of the people against the execution of the act that the distributors of the stamp paper who did not voluntarily resign were compelled so to do, either by threats or force. On the 1st of November, the day the act was to take effect, neither stamps nor stamp officers were to be found in the col onies. The courts of justice were for a time closed, ves sels did not depart from American ports, and business of various kinds was interrupted. This state of things, however, remained for a short period only; business by general consent soon resumed its usual course without the aid of stamp paper. CHAPTER II The Supremacy of Parliament [debates in parliament] Debate on the Eight to Tax America between George Grenville and William Pitt. I. — Debate on the Eesolution Declaring the Supremacy of Parlia ment : in favor, Gen. Henry Seymour Conway and the Marquis of Eoek- ingham; opposed, Col. Isaac Barre and William Pitt — Examination of Dr. Benjamin Franklin — Debate on the Eepeal of the Stamp Act: in favor. Gen. Conway, Mr. Pitt, and Col. Barr6; opposed, Mr. Grenville — Debate in the House of Lords between Lords Camden and Mansfield on the Supremacy of Parliament — Stamp Act Eepealed and Supremacy of Parliament Asserted. WHILE this measure of the British Government was thus agitating the colonies a change took place in the British ministry. The immediate authors of the measure itself were removed from the councils of the King, and others, supposed more favor able to the American interest, came into office. On the 14th of January, 1766, the American papers relating to the origin, progress, and tendency of the disturbances in the colonies were laid before the House of Commons. These papers the House determined to take into consideration on the 28th of the same month. Upon the day of the submission of the American papers occurred the great debate between George Gren ville and William Pitt on the right of Parliament to tax America. Pitt's speeches were extemporaneous, and, since verbatim reporting was not practiced in his time, are not preserved in the exact form in which they were de livered. Of all his speeches, that on the Stamp Act, re ported by Sir Robert Dean and Lord Charlemont, is said to be closest in verbiage to the actual oration, with 40 SUPREMACY OF PARLIAMENT 41 perhaps the exception of his Address to the Throne con cerning Affairs in America, reported by Hugh Boyd and corrected by Pitt. The Right to Tax America PITT vs. GEENVILLE Mr. Pitt arose from his place in the House and said : It is a long time, Mr. Speaker, since I have attended in Par liament. When the resolution was taken in this House to tax America I was ill in bed. If I could have endured to be carried in my bed — so great was the agitation of my mind for the conse quences — I would have solicited some kind hand to have laid me down on this floor, to have borne my testimony against it ! It is now an act that has passed. I would speak with decency of every act of this House; but I must beg the indulgence of the House to speak of it with freedom. I hope a day may soon be appointed to consider the state of the nation with respect to America. I hope gentlemen will come to this debate with all the temper and impartiality that his Majesty recommends, and the importance of the subject re quires; a subject of greater importance than ever engaged the attention of this House, that subject only excepted when, near a century ago, it was the question whether you yourselves were to be bond or free. In the meantime, as I cannot depend upon my health for any future day (such is the nature of my in firmities), I will beg to say a few words at present, leaving the justice, the equity, the policy, the expediency of the act to an other time. I wiU only speak to one point — a point which seems not to have been generally understood — I mean to the right. Some gen tlemen [alluding to Mr. Nugent] seem to have considered it as a point of honor. If gentlemen consider it in that light, they leave all measures of right and wrong, to follow a delusion that may lead to destruction. It is my opinion that this kingdom has no right to lay a tax upon the colonies. At the same time, I assert the authority of this kingdom over the colonies to be sovereign and supreme, in every circumstance of government and legislation whatsoever. They are the subjects of this king dom; equally entitled with yourselves to all the natural rights of mankind and the peculiar privileges of Englishmen ; equally bound by its laws, and equally participating in the constitution 42 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES of this free country. The Americans are the sons, not the bas tards of England! Taxation is no part of the governing or legislative power. The taxes are a voluntary gift and grant of the Commons alone. In legislation the three estates of the realm are alike concerned; but the concurrence of the peers and the Crown to a tax is only necessary to clothe it with the form of a law. The gift and grant is of the Commons alone. In ancient days the Crown, the barons, and the clergy possessed the lands. In those days the barons and the clergy gave and granted to the Crown. They gave and granted what was their own! At pres ent, since the discovery of America, and other circumstances permitting, the commons are become the proprietors of the land. The Church (God bless it!) has but a pittance. The property of the lords, compared with that of the commons, is as a drop of water in the ocean; and this House represents those commons, the proprietors of the lands; and those proprietors virtually represent the rest of the inhabitants. When, therefore, in this House, we give and grant, we give and grant what is our own. But in an American tax what do we do? "We, your Majesty's commons for Great Britain, give and grant to your Majesty" — what ? Our own property ! No ! " We give and grant to your Majesty" the property of your Majesty's commons of America! It is an absurdity in terms. The distinction between legislation and taxation is essentially necessary to liberty. The Crown and the peers are equally leg islative powers with the Commons. If taxation be a part of simple legislation the Crown and the peers have rights in taxa tion as well as yourselves; rights which they will claim, which they will exercise, whenever the principle can be supported by power. There is an idea in some that the colonies are virtually repre sented in the House. I would fain know by whom an American is represented here. Is he represented by any knight of the shire in any county in this kingdom? Would to God that re spectable representation was augmented to a greater number! Or will you tell him that he is represented by any representative of a borough ? a borough which, perhaps, its own representatives never saw ! This is what is called the rotten part of the consti tution. It cannot continue a century.^ If it does not drop it must be amputated. The idea of a virtual representation of America in this House is the most contemptible idea that ever entered iato the head of a man. It does not deserve a serious refutation. 'The "rotten boroughs" in England were abolished in 1832. SUPRExAIACY OF PARLIAMENT 43 The commons of America, represented in their several as semblies, have ever been in possession of the exercise of this, their constitutional right, of giving and granting their own money. They would have been slaves if they had not enjoyed it ! At the same time, this kingdom, as the supreme governiag and legislative power, has always bound the colonies by her laws, by her regulations, and restrictions in trade, in navigation, in manufactures, in everything, except that of taking their money out of their pockets without their consent. Here I would draw the line : Quam ultra eitraque neque consistere rectum.^ At the conclusion of Mr. Pitt's remarks, Mr. Gren ville arose in behalf of the government. He began by severely censuring the ministry for not giving Parlia ment earlier notice of the disturbances in America. "They began," said he, "in July, and now we are in the middle of January; lately they were only occur rences ; they are now grown to disturbances, to tumults and riots. I doubt they border on open rebellion; and, if the doctrine I have heard this day be confirmed, I fear they win lose that name to take that of revolution. The government over them being dissolved, a revolution will take place in America." Then, applying himself to the issue of the debate, namely, the distinction between internal and external taxation, Mr. Grenville continued: I cannot understand the difference between external and in ternal taxes. They are the same in effect, and differ only in name. That this kingdom has the sovereign, the supreme legis lative power over America is granted; it cannot be denied; and taxation is a part of that sovereign power. It is one branch of the legislation. It is, it has been, exercised over those who are not, who were never, represented. It is exercised over the India Company, the merchants of London, the proprietors of the stocks, and over many great manufacturing towns. It was ex ercised over the county palatine of Chester, and the bishopric of Durham, before they sent any representatives to Parliament. I appeal for proof to the preambles of the acts which gave them representatives; one in the reign of Henry VIII, the other in that of Charles II. [ilr. GrenviUe then quoted the acts, and * ' ' Eight lies wholly neither with one side nor the other. ' ' 44 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES desired that they might be read ; which being done, he said] : When I proposed to tax America I asked the House if any gentleman would object to the right ; I repeatedly asked it, and no man would attempt to deny it. Protection and obedience are reciprocal. Great Britain protects America; America is bound to yield obedience. If not, tell me when the Americans were emancipated? When they want the protection of this kingdom they are always very ready to ask it. That protection has always been afforded them in the most full and ample man ner. The nation has run herself into an immense debt to give them their protection; and now, when they are called upon to contribute a small share toward the public expense — an expense arising from themselves — they renounce your authority, insult your officers, and break out, I might almost say, into open re bellion. The seditious spirit of the colonies owes its birth to the factions in this House. Gentlemen are careless of the conse quences of what they say, provided it answers the purposes of opposition. We were told we trod on tender ground. We were bid to expect disobedience. What is this but telling the Ameri cans to stand out against the law, to encourage their obstinacy with the expectation of support from hence? "Let us only hold out a little," they would say, "our friends will soon be in power." Ungrateful people of America! Bounties have been extended to them. When I had the honor of serving the Crown, while you yourselves were loaded with an enormous debt, you gave bounties on their lumber, on their iron, their hemp, and many other articles. You have relaxed in their favor the Act of Navigation, that palladium of the British commerce ; and yet I have been abused in all the public papers as an enemy to the trade of America. I have been particularly charged with giving orders and instructions to prevent the Spanish trade, and thereby stopping the channel by which alone North America used to be supplied with cash for remittances to this country. I defy any man to produce any such orders or instructions. I discouraged no trade but what was illicit, what was prohibited by an act of Parliament. I desire a West India merchant [Mr. Long], well known in the city, a gentleman of character, may be examined. He will tell you that I offered to do every thing in my power to advance the trade of America. I was above giving an answer to anonymous calumnies; but in this place it becomes one to wipe off the aspersion. Here Mr. Grenville ceased. Several members got up to speak, but Mr. Pitt seeming to rise, the House was SUPREMACY OF PARLIAIMENT 45 so clamorous for Mr. Pitt! Mr. Pitt! that the speaker was obliged to call to order. Mr. Pitt said: I do not apprehend I am speaking twice. I did expressly reserve a part of my subject, in order to save the time of this House; but I am compelled to proceed in it. I do not speak twice; I only finish what I designedly left imperfect. But if the House is of a different opinion, far be it from me to indulge a wish of transgression against order. I am content, if it be your pleasure, to be silent. Here he paused. The House resounding with Go on! go on! he proceeded: Gentlemen, sir, have been charged with giving birth to sedition in America. They have spoken their sentiments with freedom against this unhappy act, and that freedom has become their crime. Sorry I am to hear the liberty of speech in this House imputed as a crime. But the imputation shall not dis courage me. It is a liberty I mean to exercise. No gentleman ought to be afraid to exercise it. It is a liberty by which the gentleman who calumniates it might have profited. He ought to have desisted from his project. The gentleman tells us America is obstinate ; America is almost in open rebellion. I rejoice that America has resisted. Three millions of people, so dead to all the feelings of liberty as voluntarily to submit to be slaves, would have been fit instruments to make slaves of the rest. I come not here armed at all points, with law cases and acts of Parliament, with the statute book doubled down in dog's ears, to defend the cause of liberty. If I had, I myself would have cited the two cases of Chester and Durham. I would have cited them to show that, even under former arbitrary reigns. Parliaments were ashamed of taxing a people without their consent, and allowed them representatives. Why did the gentleman confine himself to Chester and Durham ? He might have taken a higher example ia Wales — Wales, that never was taxed by Parliament till it was incorporated.^ I would not debate a particular point of law with the gentleman. I know his abilities. I have been obliged to his diligent researches. But, for the defence of liberty, upon a general principle, upon a constitutional principle, it is a ground on which I stand firm — on which I dare meet any man. ' The right of representation in Parliament was given to Wales, as well as to the adjoining counties of Chester and Monmouth, in the reign of Henry VIII, and to the county of Durham in 1673. Before this representa tion was accorded these districts were free from direct national taxation. 46 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES The gentleman tells us of many who are taxed, and are not represented — the India company, merchants, stockholders, man ufacturers. Surely many of these are represented in other ca pacities, as owners of land, or as freemen of boroughs. It is a misfortune that more are not equally represented. But they are all inhabitants, and as such, are they not virtually repre sented ? Many have it in their option to be actually represented. They have connections with those that elect, and they have in fluence over them. The gentleman mentioned the stockholders. I hope he does not reckon the debts of the nation as a part of the national estate. Since the accession of King Vfilliam, many ministers, some of great, others of more moderate abilities, have taken the lead of government. [Here Mr. Pitt went through the list of them, bringing it down till he came to himself, giving a short sketch of the characters of each, and then proceeded] : None of these thought, or even dreamed, of robbing the colonies of their con stitutional rights. That was reserved to mark the era of the late administration. Not that there were wanting some, when I had the honor to serve His Majesty, to propose to me to burn my fingers with an American stamp act. With the enemy at their back, with our bayonets at their breasts, in the day of their distress, perhaps the Americans would have submitted to the imposition; but it would have been taking an ungenerous, an unjust advantage. The gentleman boasts of his bounties to America ! Are not these bounties intended finally for the benefit of this kingdom ? If they are not, he has misapplied the national treasures ! I am no courtier of America. I stand up for this kingdom. I maintain that the Parliament has a right to bind, to restrain America. Our legislative power over the colonies is sovereign and supreme. When it ceases to be sovereign and supreme I would advise every gentleman to sell his lands, if he can, and embark for that country. When two countries are connected together like England and her colonies, without being incorpo rated, the one must necessarily govern. The greater must rule the less. But she must so rule it as not to contradict the funda mental principles that are common to both. If the gentleman does not understand the difference between external and internal taxes, I cannot help it. There is a plain distinction between taxes levied for the purposes of raising a revenue and duties imposed for the regulation of trade, for the accommodation of the subject; although, in the consequences, some revenue may incidentally arise from the latter. SUPREMACY OF PARLIAMENT 47 The gentleman asks. When were the colonies emancipated? I desire to know, when were they made slaves ? But I dwell not upon words. When I had the honor of serving His Majesty I availed myself of the means of information which I derived from my office. I speak, therefore, from knowledge. My materials were good. I was at pains to collect, to digest, to consider them ; and I will be bold to affirm that the profit to Great Britain from the trade of the colonies, through all its branches, is two millions a year. This is the fund that carried you triumphantly through the last war. The estates that were rented at two thousand pounds a year, threescore years ago, are at three thousand at present. Those estates sold then from fifteen to eighteen years purchase; the same may now be sold for thirty. You owe this to America. This is the price America pays you for her protec tion. And shall a miserable financier come with a boast that he can bring ' ' a pepper-corn ' ' into the exchequer by the loss of millions to the nation ? ^ I dare not say how much higher these profits may be augmented. Omitting the immense increase of people, by natural population, in the northern colonies, and the emigration from every part of Europe, I am convinced on other grounds that the commercial system of America may be altered to advantage. You have prohibited where you ought to have encouraged. You have encouraged where you ought to have prohibited. Improper restraints have been laid on the continent in favor of the islands. You have but two nations to trade with in America. Would you had twenty! Let acts of Parliament in consequence of treaties remain; but let not an English min ister become a custom-house officer for Spain, or for any foreign power. Much is wrong ! Much may be amended for the general good of the whole! Does the gentleman complain he has been misrepresented in the public prints ? It is a common misfortune. In the Span ish affair of the last war I was abused in all the newspapers for having advised his Majesty to violate the laws of nations with regard to Spain. The abuse was industriously circulated even in hand-bills. If administration did not propagate the abuse administration never contradicted it. I will not say what ad vice I did give the King. My advice is in writing, signed by my self, in the possession of the Crown. But I will say what advice I did not give to the King. I did not advise him to violate any of the laws of nations. » This refers to a statement of Mr. Nugent, one of the debaters on the side of the Administration, that, "a peppercorn [which is a British form of purely nominal payment], in acknowledgment of the right to tax America, is of more value than millions without it. ' ' 48 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES As to the report of the gentleman's preventing in some way the trade of bullion with the Spaniards, it was spoken of so confidently that I own I am one of those who did believe it to be true. The gentleman must not wonder he was not contradicted when, as minister, he asserted the right of Parliament to tax America. I know not how it is, but there is a modesty in this House which does not choose to contradict a minister. Even your chair, sir, looks too often toward St. James '.^ I wish gentlemen would get the better of this modesty. If they do not perhaps the collective body may begin to abate of its respect for the representative. Lord Bacon has told me that a great question would not fail of being agitated at one time or another. I was willing to agitate such a question at the proper season, viz., that of the German war — my German war, they called it! Every session I called out. Has anybody any objection to the German war? Nobody would object to it, one gentleman only excepted, since removed to the Upper House by succession to an ancient barony [Lord Le Despencer, formerly Sir Francis Dash- wood] . He told me he did not like a German war. I honored the man for it, and was sorry when he was turned out of his post. A great deal has been said without doors of the power, of the strength of America. It is a topic that ought to be cau tiously meddled with. In a good cause, on a sound bottom, the force of this country can crush America to atoms. I know the valor of your troops. I know the skill of your officers. There is not a company of foot that has served in America out of which you may not pick a man of sufficient knowledge and ex perience to make a governor of a colony there. But on this ground, on the Stamp Act, which so many here will think a crying injustice, I am one who will lift up my hands against it. In such a cause your success would be hazardous. America, if she fell, would fall like the strong man; she would embrace the pillars of the state, and pull down the constitution along with her. Is this your boasted peace — not to sheathe the sword in its scabbard, but to sheathe it in the bowels of your country men ? Will you quarrel with yourselves, now the whole house of Bourbon is united against you ; while Prance disturbs your fish eries in Newfoundland, embarrasses your slave trade to Africa, and withholds from your subjects in Canada their property stipulated by treaty ; while the ransom for the Manillas is denied by Spain, and its gallant conqueror basely traduced into a mean ^The English royal court. SUPREMACY OF PARLIAMENT 49 plunderer; a gentleman [Colonel Draper], whose noble and generous spirit would do honor to the proudest grandee of the country? The Americans have not acted in all things with prudence and temper: they have been wronged: they have been driven to madness by injustice. Will you punish them for the madness you have occasioned ? Rather let prudence and temper come first from this side. I wiU undertake for America that she will follow the example. There are two lines in a ballad of Prior's, of a man's behavior to his wife, so applicable to you and your colonies, that I cannot help repeating them : "Be to her faults a little blind; Be to her virtues very kind." Upon the whole, I wiU beg leave to tell the House what is my opinion. It is that the Stamp Act be repealed absolutely, totally, and immediately. That the reason for the repeal be assigned, viz., because it was founded on an erroneous principle. At the same time, let the sovereign authority of this country over the colonies be asserted in as strong terms as can be devised, and be made to extend to every point of legislation whatsoever; that we may bind their trade, confine their manufactures, and exercise everj- power whatsoever, except that of taking their money out of their pockets without their consent. Debate on the Supremacy of Parliament On the 27th of January, 1766, the petition of the American Congress was offered to the House of Com mons. Several objections to receiving it were immedi ately made, such as that it came from an unauthorized and unconstitutional assembly ; and that to receive a peti tion from persons thus assembled without any authority from the Crown would give countenance to such illegal meetings in future. Such meetings, it was said, were pregnant with danger to His Majesty's authority and government. Another strong objection to the reception of the memorial arose from the petitioners denying the right of Parliament to impose internal taxes, and ques tioning their right even to lay duties for the regulation of trade in the colonies. This, it was said, struck at the very vitals of legislative authority, and strongly pointed to a state independent of the mother country. Finally, after an examination of the petition in com- 50 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES mittee of the whole, which lasted three or four days, Secretary Henry Seymour Conway moved a resolution declaring "that the King's Majesty, by and with the ad vice and consent of the Lords, spiritual anl temporal, and Commons of Great Britain, in Parliament assembled, had, hath, and, of right, ought to have full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of Amer ica subjects of Great Britain, in all cases whatsoever." This resolution was followed by four others, declar ing that the tumults and insurrections in the colonies were in open defiance of His Majesty's government; and, the same being encouraged by sundry votes and resolu tions in the colonial assemblies, proper recompense must be made to those who had suffered in their persons and property. The ministry had now determined to procure a re peal of the acts relating to stamps ; and at the same time to assert in the most unqualified manner the absolute supremacy of Parliament over the colonies. In introducing the first resolution. Gen. Conway and the Marquis of Rockingham, chancellor of the exchequer, said they were induced to offer the proposition in so extensive a manner not only as necessary to meet the resolutions and language of several of the colonies, but because, upon the fullest enquiry into the constitution of Great Britain, they were convinced that, in point of law, the King, Lords, and Commons were undoubtedly possessed of that power, though in point of policy, jus tice, or equity, it was a power they ought to exercise, but in the most extraordinary cases only. Col. Barre moved to strike out the words in the declaratory resolution, "in all cases whatsoever"; he should then, he said, have no objection to it. He was seconded by Mr. Pitt. This brought up directly the great question of the right of Parliament to tax the colonists, and the long and animated debate which followed was principally confined to this point alone. SUPREMACY OF PARLIAMENT 51 Those in favor of the motion said, among other things, that the emigrants to the colonies carried with them every right the crown could grant, and every right of British subjects. That they carried with them the common law of the land ; and that by this common law, and the spirit of the constitution, no man could be taxed without being represented — that the people of America could not, with the least propriety, be said to be repre sented in the Parliament of Great Britain ; and it was represen tation alone which gave the right and power to the Commons of imposing taxes. This, they said, was the foundation of all the arguments and reasoning of Mr. Locke on the subject ; and greater authority could not be produced. That the principles of taxation as distinguished from legislation were as distinct principles and powers as any two propositions under the sun; and had been so considered uniformly by their ancestors for many ages — that the counties palatine of Chester and Durham had always taxed themselves by writs of requisition, and on that account, when the grant of a charter was made out erecting Lancaster into a county palatine, there was an express reserva tion of the power of Parliament to impose taxes upon the people of that county ; which would have been unnecessary if the power of Parliament was such as contended for. That the clergy formerly taxed themselves; for, though the archbishops and others sat in Parliament, it was not as repre sentatives of the clergy ; the body of the clergy, therefore, sepa rately and by themselves, granted subsidies to the Crown, and neither Lords nor Commons attempted to alter or vary them; and that this was a strong authority to show the difference be tween taxation and legislation. That, by the principles of the constitution, the Commons alone made grants to the Crown — that all bills which passed both houses of Parliament remained in the Upper House for the fiat of the King, except bills of subsidy and taxes, which, when passed by the Lords, were again sent down to the Commons, and by the speaker presented to the sovereign as the free gift of the Commons ; and of the Commons alone the King asks for a supply, and to them only he renders his thanks when granted. That by solemn compacts express powers had been granted to the colonists; powers repeatedly recognized by Parliament. It was evidently intended that the Americans should be as free as other British subjects: they have the power of raising and granting their money — a power which constitutes the essence of Parliament— if this is taken from them the very existence, the very essence, of assemblies is destroyed. The colonists, therefore. 52 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES have a right to consider the Stamp Act as a grievance which should be removed. The justice of the claim upon the colonies for contribution, it was said, could not be denied ; but the mode in which this contribution should be made was a distinct thing. That with respect to taxes Great Britain and the colonies might have opposing interests; and there was a possibility that the burdens of the one might be relieved at the expense and oppres sion of the other— that the circumstances and abilities of the colonists could never be so justly and truly known to the Com mons of England as to their own Assemblies — there they can enjoy the exercise of that fundamental right of British subjects, to have some one to speak for them when their property is called for by way of taxes, and to represent their condition and abili ties. This in Parliament is impracticable, and they are, thereby, deprived of a most important privilege. The supreme power, wherever lodged, must always be controlled by reason, by the principles of justice and humanity — the distance and situation of the colonists, however, were such that the greatest caution could not exempt them from oppression. A lenient, humane, and magnanimous conduct, it was said, did more to secure and preserve to Rome her distant colonies than all the legions she was ever mistress of, or could at any time command. Should the House, after all, be of opinion that Parliament possessed this summum jus, it should be remembered, they said, that summa injuria was its well-known offspring. The opponents of the motion of Col. Barre rejoiced that the debate was now confined to the single question of power and right in Parliament to pass the law, so loudly complained of, without intermingling in the debate the expediency of its re peal; which would be a proper subject for consideration another day. In opposition to the motion it was observed that the estab lishment of the colonies was originally by license from the Crown — that, on account of the distance of the emigrants from the great executive power of the realm, the Crown granted them charters investing them with powers of government necessary for their protection, defence, and for the support of civil au thority among them — that these powers were of the same nature with those granted to the East India company and to the great cities and corporations in England ; each having power to raise money for their support, but neither, by any grant the King could make, could be exempted from the supreme authority of King, Lords, and Commons — that the Crown was but a part of the supreme power of the realm, and could not grant that which belonged to the supreme legislative power, which extended SUPREMACY OF PARLIAMENT 53 wheresoever the sovereignty of the Crown extended — that the colonists in their new settlements owed the same subjection and allegiance to the supreme power as when residing in Great Britain — that no time or distance could terminate this subjec tion and allegiance, and which, by the law of the land, must descend to their posterity. That no compact made between the Crown and his subjects upon their emigration could have de stroyed their relation with this supreme sovereign power. That Parliament should have the power to alter or change their prop erty, to enact laws for the punishment of great offences and, in particular, of high treason, by which they might be divested of their property, their inheritances taken away, without their immediate consent ; and yet not have power to impose a tax upon that property seemed, they said, an extraordinary proposi tion. That, after the Revolution of 1688, upon an application to have the judgment reversed, which in 1684 had adjudged the charter of Blassachusetts null and void, on a writ of quo war ranto the agents urged the illegality of the proceedings, and insisted that the judgment should be reversed on that account, and their charter restored; yet PoUexfen and Holt were of opinion that, if the judgment should be reversed, and the charter restored, they must still expect to have it repealed, because in making the extensive grants contained in it the Crown had exceeded its authority. That in the year 1713, also, a bill was brought into Parliament for the purpose of raising a revenue in the province of New York which had been refused by the as sembly there for the support of His Majesty's government; that this bill was prepared by Sir Edward Northey and Lord Ray mond, who were not only able lawyers, but great supporters and defenders of the rights of the subjects. That in 1716 a biU was introduced into Parliament by the great Secretary Stan hope for resuming the powers granted in the colony charters; and that in this, and other similar cases, the power of Parliament to revoke these charters, or resume the powers therein granted, was not questioned. If Parliament, they said, could take away the charters themselves under which the colonists claimed the exclusive right of laying taxes it must have the power of taxa tion itself. As to representation, they said, whether actual or virtual, it was by no means the sole and ancient basis of the supreme power and authority of Parliament ; the clergy, it was true, for a time taxed themselves, but not because they were unrepresented in Parliament. Gentlemen conversant with the true ancient history of Great Britain could not be ignorant, they said, of the former extensive power of the church in this king- 54 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES dom ; that among other exertions of this power the Pope, at the instance of the clergy, issued his mandate exempting their lands from taxation, because appropriated to the maintenance of holy church; but, not having exempted their chattels. Parliament afterward was about to tax these, when a compact was made between the Crown and the Pope (to whom the clergy had again complained) that the biU should be rescinded, and the clergy yield a contribution to government, provided it should be made by themselves separately. This, they said, was the foundation of the clergy's subsidizing their lands and property, separate and apart, an undoubted infraction of the constitution ; and this power, in after and more enlightened days, was restored. The supreme power, they said, must be complete and entire in taxa tion as well as legislation; that indulgence had been given to some subordinate districts and governments to raise money by way of taxation for local purposes; yet that indulgence could not abridge the supreme legislature of any of its powers and authority. Upon this principle, they stated, the Parliament of Great Britain alone could, and actually did (Ireland having that indulgence granted), absolve the people of Ireland from duties due to the Crown imposed by acts passed in their own Parlia ment ; on the same principle the Commons of England directed that the charge of the army, kept up for the security and defence of the kingdom, should be provided for by the people of Ireland ; leaving such provision to be made by the Irish Parliament; which, if not complied with, would have been enforced by a law of Great Britain, and this was so understood at the time in both kingdoms. That all the ancient subsidy acts declared that the subsidies laid and imposed were to be paid by his Majesty's sub jects within the realm and in all the King's domains; though particular parts and places were sometimes expressly excepted, as Wales constantly before the statute of Henry VIII, Ireland, the counties Palatine, upon whom the charge of defending the northern frontier was imposed by their charter, Calais, Guienne, Gascony, and particular corporations, for certain reasons; and that if those places had not been excepted they must have paid the subsidy, though not represented in Parliament. The strength of the empire in America itself, they also declared, depended on an exact and entire obedience to the supreme authority in Great Britain; that if this authority should be infringed in any in stance confusion must inevitably follow; that cases might, and undoubtedly would, happen to puzzle the ablest lav^yers, to dis tinguish the difference between duties and taxation, between the right of laying the one or the other ; that this was settled and es- SUPREMACY OF PARLIAMENT 55 tablished to be one entire power lodged in the commons of England in the time of William III, between the House of Lords and Commons when the Lords were disposed to establish a dif ference between duties and impositions on merchandize, and the grant of taxes and subsidies, with a view to confirm the power of the Commons to the latter only ; but the Commons, from the long and uniform usage of Parliament, claimed this power entire and in its full extent. It was for the welfare and happiness of the whole, as well as for the dignity and honor of Parliament, it was also said, that the power now questioned by the colonists should be supported ^vith firmness and resolution. It was not a little extraordinary that it should be now disputed by the Ameri cans. At so late as the year 1755 a general complaint was trans mitted to Great Britain against the assembly of Pennsylvania for not making the necessary provision for the defence and pro tection of that colony; and, but for particular circumstances. Parliament would have then interfered. That in consequence of some provincial differences Slaryland, as was said, did not contribute her proportion toward the general expense of the late war, and that the other colonies had contemplated sending a representation against that colony, praying the interposition of Parliament. The Americans must then have had different views of the power which they now deny. That government is founded in trust, and that this trust, wherever placed, was absolute and entire : that the kingdom and colonies composed one great politi cal body; and, though the jealous language of liberty could not but be admired by all who loved the constitution, yet when that jealousy was carried so far as to tell the sovereign power we wiU not trust you unless you give up that power, it became alarming, and called for the exertion of wisdom and spirit. Ask Prance, they said, what occasion for your destruction she would wish; she will answer, divisions between you and your colonies; she would desire the diminution of your authority over the colonies as one of the surest means of accomplishing the great object of her ambition. To preserve this sovereignty entire is then so essentially necessary for the advantage and happiness of both America and Great Britain that, if once abridged, or the entire dependency of the colonies given up, your power and authority as a great and respected kingdom and empire are gone; no friend wiU trust you, no enemy will fear you. This debate was considered so important and was of such absorbing interest that it did not end until four in the morning, when the motion of Col. Barre was nega- 56 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES tived by a very large majority, few voices answering in the affirmative.^ Examination of Benjamin Franklin The resolutions of General Conway were reported to the House on the 10th of February and agreed to; and the next day an inquiry began on the subject of repeal ing the law complained of. This inquiry and examina tion continued until the 18th of the same month. Dr. Benjamin Franklin among others was called before the House, and underwent a long examination. No person was better acquainted with the circumstances and in ternal concerns of the colonies, the temper and disposi tion of the colonists toward the parent country, or their feelings in relation to the late measures of Parliament. His answers to the numerous questions put to him in the course of this inquiry not only show his extensive ac quaintance with the internal state of the colonies, but evince his sagacity as a statesman. To the question whether the Americans would submit to pay the stamp duty if the act were modified and the duty reduced to a small amount, he answered, "No, they never will sub mit to it." British statesmen were extremely desirous that the colonial assemblies should acknowledge the right of Parliament to tax them, and rescind and erase from their journals their resolutions on this subject. To a question, whether the American assemblies would do this. Dr. Franklin answered, ' ' They never will do it, unless compelled by force of arms. ' ' The Commons Repeal the Stamp Act Soon after this examination was finished. Gen. Con way proposed a resolution to repeal the act imposing stamp duties in America. This produced another de bate, and the same arguments were renewed. The sense of the house was first taken on a motion to strike out the word "repeal" and insert "explain and ¦ Charles Garth's MSS. Letters to South Carolina. This gentleman was a member of Parliament, and present at all the debates on American afEairs. SUPREMACY OF PARLIAMENT 57 amend"; this was negatived, 275 to 167, and decided the fate of the resolution. In this, as well as in the pre ceding debates on American affairs, Mr. Grenville and his adherents were opposed to the claims of the colo nists, and strongly urged the execution of the Stamp Act at every hazard. Mr. Pitt, afterward Lord Chatham, and Col. Barre were the chief opponents of Mr. Gren ville. PUNEEAL PROCESSION OF THE STAMP ACT A cartoon circulated by the Sons of Liberty [i From the collection in the New York Public Library The bill repealing the Stamp Act was passed by the Commons, together with the declaration of the right of Parliament to tax America, and on March 5, 1766, both bills were sent to the House of Lords. The declaration of the Supremacy of Parliament had already been debated in the House of Lords. On Feb ruary 3 a motion was made declaring the right of Great Britain to tax America. In the debate which followed the American cause was supported by the powerful tal ents of Charles Pratt, Lord Camden. As a consequence of this generous advocacy the noble lord became very popular in the colonies, many towns and counties being named in his honor. 58 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES Parliament May Not Contravene Natural Rights lord camden The noble lord denied the right of Parliament to tax America, because unrepresented, saying: My position is this— I repeat it — I will maintain to the last hour taxation and representation arc inseparably connected. God has joined them, no British Parliament can separate them ; to endeavor to do so is to stab our vitals. This position is founded in the law of nature. It is more, it is in itself an eternal law of nature. For whatever is a man 's own is absolutely his own. No man has a right to take it from him without his consent either expressed by himself or his representative. Who ever attempts to do this attempts an injury. Whoever does it commits a robbery. Therefore, my Lords, in my opinion the Legislature have no right to make this law. The sovereign authority, the omnipo tence of the Legislature, is a favorite doctrine; but there are some things which you cannot do. You cannot take away a man's property without making him a compensation. You have no right to condemn a man by bill of attainder without hearing him. But, though Parliament cannot take away a man's prop erty, yet every subject must make contributions, and this he con sents to do by his representative. Notwithstanding the King, Lords, and Commons could in ancient times tax other people, they could not tax the clergy. Lord Camden then repeated Pitt's argument rela tive to Wales and other regions of the greater island that had not been taxed when unrepresented in Parlia ment, and added to these the case of Ireland, of which the same was true. He was replied to by William Murray, Lord Mans field, whose speech is by far the ablest presentation of the affirmative side of the supremacy of Parliament. It was really directed against Pitt, though formally against Camden, whose arguments were largely repetitions of Pitt's. SUPREMACY OF PARLIAMENT 59 Necessity of a Supreme Legislature lord mansfield My Lords — I shall speak to the question strictly as a matter of right ; for it is a proposition in its nature so perfectly distinct from the expediency of the tax, that it must necessarily be taken separate, if there is any true logic in the world ; but of the ex pediency or inexpediency I will say nothing. It will be time enough to speak upon that subject when it comes to be a ques tion. I shall also speak to the distinctions which have been taken, without any real difference, as to the nature of the tax; and I shall point out, lastly, the necessity there will be of exerting the force of the superior authority of government, if opposed by the subordinate part of it. I am extremely sorry that the question has ever become neces sary to be agitated, and that there should be a decision upon it. No one in this House will live long enough to see an end put to the mischief which will be the result of the doctrine which has been inculcated ; but the arrow is shot and the wound already given. I shall certainly avoid personal reflections. No one has had more cast upon him than myself ; but I never was biased by any consideration of applause from without, in the discharge of my public duty ; and, in giving my sentiments according to what I thought law, I have relied upon my own consciousness. It is with great pleasure I have heard the noble Lord who moved the resolution express himself in so manly and sensible a way when he recommended a dispassionate debate, while, at the same time, he urged the necessity of the House coming to such a resolution, with great dignity and propriety of argument. I shall endeavor to clear away from the question all that mass of dissertation and learning displayed in arguments which have been fetched from speculative men who have written upon the subject of government, or from ancient records, as being little to the purpose. I shall insist that these records are no proofs of our present constitution. A noble Lord has taken up his argument from the settlement of the constitution at the Rev olution [of 1688] ; I shall take up my argument from the con stitution as it now is. The constitution of this country has been always in a moving state, either gaining or losing something, and with respect to the modes of taxation, when we get beyond the reign of Edward I, or of King John, we are all in doubt and obscurity. The history of those times is full of uncertainties. 60 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES In regard to the writs upon record they were issued some of them according to law, and some not according to law; and such [i. e., of the latter kind] were those concerning ship-money, to call assemblies to tax themselves, or to compel benevolences. Other taxes were raised from escuage, fees for knights' service, and by other means arising out of the feudal system. Benevo lences are contrary to law; and it is well known how people resisted the demands of the Crown in the case of ship-money, and were persecuted by the Court ; and if any set of men were to meet now to lend the King money it would be contrary to law, and a breach of the rights of Parliament. I shall now answer the noble Lord particularly upon the cases he has quoted. With respect to the Marches of Wales, who were the borderers, privileged for assisting the King in his war against the Welsh in the mountains, their enjoying this privilege of tax ing themselves was but of a short duration, and during the life of Edward the First, till the Prince of Wales came to be the King; and then they were annexed to the Crown, and became subject to taxes like the rest of the dominions of England ; and from thence came the custom, though unnecessary, of naming Wales and the town of Monmouth in all proclamations and in acts of Parliament. Henry the Eighth was the first who issued writs for it to return two members to Parliament. The Crown exercised this right ad libitum, from whence arises the inequality of representation in our Constitution at this day. Henry VIII. issued a writ to Calais to send one burgess to Parliament. One of the counties palatine [I think he said Durham] was taxed fifty years to subsidies before it sent members to Parliament. The clergy were at no time unrepresented in Parliament. When they taxed themselves it was done with the concurrence and consent of Parliament, who permitted them to tax themselves upon their petition, the Convocation sitting at the same time with the Parliament. They had, too, their representatives al ways sitting in this House, bishops and abbots ; and, in the other House, they were at no time without a right of voting singly for the election of members ; so that the argument fetched from the case of the clergy is not an argument of any force, because they were at no time unrepresented here. The reasoning about the colonies of Great Britain, drawn from the colonies of antiquity, is a mere useless display of learn ing ; for the colonies of the Tyrians in Africa, and of the Greeks in Asia, were totally different from our system. No nation be fore ourselves formed any regular system of colonization but the Romans; and their system was a military one, and of garri- SUPREMACY OF PARLIAMENT 61 sons placed in the principal towns of the conquered provinces. The states of Holland were not colonies of Spain; they were states dependent upon the house of Austria in a feudal depen dence. Nothing could be more different from our colonies than that flock of men, as they have been called, who came from the North and poured into Europe. Those emigrants renounced all laws, all protection, all connection with their mother countries. They chose their leaders, and marched imder their banners to seek their fortunes and establish new kingdoms upon the ruins of the Roman empire. But our colonies, on the contrary, emigrated under the sanc tion of the Crown and Parliament. They were modeled gradu ally into their present forms, respectively, by charters, grants, and statutes; but they were never separated from the mother country, or so emancipated as to become sui juris. There are several sorts of colonies in British America. The charter colo nies, the proprietary governments, and the King's colonies. The first colonies were the charter colonies, such as the Virginia Company ; and these companies had among their directors mem bers of the privy council and of both houses of Parliament ; they were under the authority of the privy council, and had agents resident here, responsible for their proceedings. So much were they considered as belonging to the Crown, and not to the King personally (for there is a great difference, though few people attend to it), that when the two houses, in the time of Charles the First, were going to pass a bill concerning the colonies, a message was sent to them by the King that they were the King's colonies, and that the bill was unnecessary, for that the privy council would take order about them; and the bill never had the royal assent. The Commonwealth Parliament, as soon as it was settled, were very early jealous of the colonies separating themselves from them; and passed a resolution or act (and it is a question whether it is not in force now) to declare and estab lish the authority of England over its colonies. But if there was no express law, or reason founded upon any necessary inference from an express law, yet the usage alone would be sufficient to support that authority ; for have not the colonies submitted ever since their first establishment to the jur isdiction of the mother country? In all questions of property the appeals from the colonies have been to the privy council here ; and such causes have been determined, not by the law of the colonies, but by the law of England. A very little while ago there was an appeal on a question of limitation in a devise of land with remainders ; and, notwithstanding the intention of the 62 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES testator appeared very clear, yet the case was determined con trary to it, and that the land should pass according to the law of England. A very little while ago there was an appeal on a question of limitation in a devise of land with remainders ; and, notwithstanding the intention of the testator appeared very clear, yet the case was determined contrary to it, and that the land should pass according to the law of England. The col onies have been obliged to recur very frequently to the jur isdiction here, to settle the disputes among their own gov ernments. I well remember several references on this head, when the late Lord Hardwicke was attorney general, and Sir Clement Wearg solicitor general. New Hampshire and Connecticut were in blood about their differences ; Virginia and Maryland were in arms against each other. This shows the necessity of one superior decisive jurisdiction, to which all subordinate jurisdictions may recur. Nothing, my Lords, could be more fatal to the peace of the colonies at any time than the Parliament giving up its authority over them; for in such a case there must be an entire dissolution of government. Con sidering how the colonies are composed, it is easy to foresee there would be no end of feuds and factions among the several sepa rate governments, when once there shall be no one government here or there of sufficient force or authority to decide their mutual differences; and, government being dissolved, nothing remains but that the colonies must either change their Consti tution, and take some new form of government, or fall under some foreign power. At present the several forms of their Constitution are very various, having been produced, as all gov ernments have been originally, by accident and circumstances, The forms of government in every colony were adopted, from time to time, according to the size of the colony; and so have been extended again, from time to time, as the numbers of their inhabitants and their commercial connections outgrew the first model. In some colonies at first there was only a governor assisted by two or three counsel ; then more were added ; after ward courts of justice were erected ; then assemblies were cre ated. Some things were done by instructions from the secre taries of state; other things were done by order of the King and council; and other things by commissions under the great seal. It is observable that in consequence of these establishments from time to time, and of the dependency of these governments upon the supreme Legislature at home, the lenity of each govern ment in the colonies has been extreme toward the subject ; and a great inducement has been created for people to come and SUPREMACY OF PARLIAMENT 63 settle m them. But, if all those governments which are now independent of each other should become independent of the mother country, I am afraid that the inhabitants of the colonies are very little aware of the consequences. They would feel in that case very soon the hand of power more heavy upon them in their own governments than they have yet done, or have ever imagined. The constitutions of the different colonies are thus made up of different principles. They must remain dependent, from the necessity of things, and their relations to the jurisdiction of the mother country; or they must be totally dismembered from it, and form a league of union among themselves against it, which could not be effected without great violences. No one ever thought the contrary till the trumpet of sedition was blown. Acts of Parliament have been made, not only without a doubt of their legality, but with universal applause, the great object of which has been ultimately to fix the trade of the colonies, so as to center in the bosom of that country from whence they took their original. The Navigation Act shut up their intercourse with foreign countries. Their ports have been made subject to customs and regulations which have cramped and diminished their trade. And duties have been laid, affecting the very inmost parts of their commerce, and, among others, that of the post; yet all these have been submitted to peaceably, and no one ever thought till now of this doctrine, that the colonies are not to be taxed, regulated, or bound by Parliament. A few particular merchants were then, as now, displeased at restrictions which did not permit them to make the greatest possible advantages of their commerce in their own private and peculiar branches. But, though these few merchants might think themselves losers in articles which they had no right to gain, as being prejudicial to the general and national system, yet I must observe that the colonies, upon the whole, were benefited by these laws. For these restrictive laws, founded upon principles of the most solid policy, flung a great weight of naval force into the hands of the mother country, which was to protect its colonies. Without a union with her the colonies must have been entirely weak and defenceless, but they thus became relatively great, subordinately, and in proportion as the mother country advanced in superiority over the rest of the maritime powers in Europe, to which both mutually contributed, and of which both have reaped a benefit, equal to the natural and just relation in which they both stand reciprocally, of dependency on one side and protection on the other. 64 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES There can be no doubt, my Lords, but that the inhabitants of the colonies are as much represented in Parliament as the great est part of the people of England are represented ; among nine millions of whom there are eight which have no votes in electing members of Parliament. Every objection, therefore, to the de pendency of the colonies upon Parliament, which arises to it upon the ground of representation, goes to the whole present Constitution of Great Britain ; and I suppose it is not meant to new-model that, too. People may form speculative ideas of per fection, and indulge their own fancies or those of other men. Every man in this country has his particular notion of liberty ; but perfection never did, and never can, exist in any human institution. To what purpose, then, are arguments drawn from a distinction — in which there is no real difference — of a virtual and actual representation? A member of Parliament, chosen for any borough, represents not only the constituents and in habitants of that particular place, but hajrepresents the inhabi tants of every other borough in Great BWtain. He represents the city of London, and all the other commons of this land, and the inhabitants of all the colonies and dominions of Great Brit ain ; and is, in duty and conscience, bound to take care of their interests. I have mentioned the customs and the post tax. This leads me to answer another distinction, as false as the above ; the dis tinction of internal and external taxes. The noble Lord who quoted so much law, and denied upon those grounds the right of the Parliament of Great Britain to lay internal taxes upon the colonies, allowed at the same time that restrictions upon trade, and duties upon the ports, were legal. But I cannot see a real difference in this distinction ; for I hold it to be true that a tax laid in any place is like a pebble falling into and making a circle in a lake, tiU one circle produces and gives motion to another, and the whole circumference is agitated from the center. For nothing can be more clear than that a tax of ten or twenty per cent, laid upon tobacco, either in the ports of Virginia or Lon don, is a duty laid upon the inland plantations of Virginia, a hundred miles from the sea, wheresoever the tobacco grows. I do not deny but that a tax may be laid injudiciously and injuriously, and that people in such a case may have a right to complain. But the nature of the tax is not now the question; whenever it comes to be one I am for lenity. I would have no blood drawn. There is, I am satisfied, no occasion for any to be drawn. A little time and experience of the inconveniences and miseries of anarchy may bring people to their senses. SUPREMACY OF PARLIAMENT 65 With respect to what has been said or written upon this sub ject I differ from the noble Lord, who spoke of Mr. Otis and his book^ with contempt, though he maintained the same doctrine in some points, while in others he carried it farther than Otis himself, who allows everywhere the supremacy of the Crown over the colonies. No man, on such a subject, is contemptible. Otis is a man of consequence among the people there. They have chosen him for one of their deputies at the Congress and general meeting from the respective governments. It was said the man is mad. What then ? One madman often makes many. :Masa- niello = was mad. Nobody doubts it ; yet, for aU that, he over turned the government of Naples. Madness is catching in aU popular assemblies and upon aU popular matters. The book is full of wildness. I never read it tiU a few days ago, for I seldom look into such things. I never was actually acquainted with the contents of the Stamp Act tiU I sent for it on purpose to read it before the debate^as expected. With respect to authorities in another House, f'^know nothing of them. I believe that I have not been in that House more than once since I had the honor to be called up to this ; and, if I did know any thing that passed in the other House, I could not and would not mention it as an authority here. I ought not to mention any such authority. I eJiould think it beneath my own and your Lordship's dignity to speak of it. I am far from bearing any ill will to the Americans; they are a very good people, and I have long known them. I began life with them, and owe much to them, having been much con cerned in the plantation causes before the privy council; and so I became a good deal acquainted with .American affairs and people. I dare say their heat will soon be over, when they come to feel a little the consequences of their opposition to the Legis lature. Anarchy always cures itself; but the ferment will con tinue so much the longer, while hot-headed men there find that there are persons of weight and character to support and justify them here. Indeed, if the disturbances should continue for a great length of time force must be the consequence, an application adequate to the mischief, and arising out of the necessity of the case ; for ^ This may be ' ' The Bights of the Colonies Asserted and Proved, ' ' pub- lishecl in 1764 in Boston, or "A Vindication of the Conduct of the House of Eepresentarives of Massaehusetrs. " ' published in 1762. -Properly Tommaso Aniello, a fisherman who led a successful revolt in 1647 against the Duke of Arcos, Spanish viceroy of Xaples, who had heavily taxed the people. Succeeding, his reason became impaired by the change of fortime, and. alienating his supporters by his arbitrary acts, he was assassinated bv aLiherents of the viceroy. 66 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES force is only the difference between a superior and subordinate jurisdiction. In the former the whole force of the Legislature resides collectively, and when it ceases to reside the whole con nection is dissolved. It will, indeed, be to very little purpose that we sit here enacting laws, and making resolutions, if the inferior will not obey them, or if we neither can nor dare enforce them ; for then, and then, I say, of necessity, the matter comes to the sword. If the offspring are grown too big and too resolute to obey the parent you must try which is the strongest, and exert all the powers of the mother country to decide the contest. I am satisfied, notwithstanding, that time and a wise and steady conduct may prevent those extremities which would be fatal to both. I remember well when it was the violent humor of the times to decry standing armies and garrisons as danger ous and incompatible with the liberty of the subject. Nothing would do but a regular militia. The militia are embodied ; they march; and no sooner was the militia law thus put into execu tion, but it was then said to be an intolerable burden upon the subject, and that it would fall, sooner or later, into the hands of the Crown. That was the language, and many counties peti tioned against it. This may be the case with the colonies. In many places they begin already to feel the effects of their re sistance to government. Interest very soon divides mercantile people; and, although there may be some mad, enthusiastic, or ill-designing people in the colonies, yet I am convinced that the greatest bulk, who have understanding and property, are still well affected to the mother country. You have, my Lords, many friends still in the colonies; and take care that you do not, by abdicating your own authority, desert them and yourselves, and lose them forever. In all popular tumults the worst men bear the sway at first. Moderate and good men are often silent for fear or modesty, who, in good time, may declare themselves. Those who have any property to lose are sufficiently alarmed already at the progress of these public violences and violations, to which every man's dwelling, person, and property are hourly exposed. Numbers of such valuable men and good subjects are ready and willing to declare themselves for the support of government in due time^ if government does not fling away its own authority. My Lords, the Parliament of Great Britain has its rights over the colonies ; but it may abdicate its rights. There was a thing which I forgot to mention. I mean, the manuscript quoted by the noble Lord. He tells you that it is there said that, if the act concerning Ireland had passed, the SUPREMACY OF PARLIAMENT 67 Parliament might have abdicated its rights as to Ireland. In the first place, I heartily wish, my Lords, that Ireland liad not been named, at a time when that country is of a temper and in a situation so difficult to be governed ; and when we have already here so much weight upon our hands, encumbered with the ex- tensiveness, variety, and importance of so many objects in a vast and too busy empire, and the national system shattered and exhausted by a long, bloody, and expensive war, but more so by our divisions at home, and a fluctuation of counsels. I wish Ireland, therefore, had never been named. I pay as much respect as any man to the memory of Lord Chief Justice Hale ; but I did not know that he had ever written upon the subject; and I differ very much from thinking, with the noble Lord, that this manuscript ought to be published. So far am I from it that I wish the manuscript had never been named ; for Ireland is too tender a subject to be touched. The case of Ireland is as different as possible from that of our colonies. Ireland was a conquered country; it had its pacta conventa and its regalia. But to what purpose is it to mention the manuscript? It is but the opinion of one man. When it was written, or for what particular object it was written, does not appear. It might possibly be only a work of youth, or an exercise of the understanding, in sounding and trying a ques tion problematically. All people, when they first enter profes sions, make their collections pretty early in life ; and the manu script may be of that sort. However, be it what it may, the opinion is but problematical; for the act to which the writer refers never passed, and Lord Hale only said that if it had passed the Parliament might have abdicated their right. But, my Lords, I shall make this application of it. You may abdicate your right over the colonies. Take care, my Lords, how you do so, for such an act will be irrevocable. Proceed, then, my Lords, with spirit and firmness; and, when you shall have established your authority, it will then be a time to show your lenity. The Americans, as I said before, are a very good people, and I wish them exceedingly well; but they are heated and in flamed. The noble Lord who spoke before ended with a prayer. I cannot end better than by saying to it Amen ; and in the words of Maurice, Prince of Orange, concerning the Hollanders: "God bless this industrious, frugal, and well-meaning, but easily de luded people." The Stamp Act was repealed, and the Declaratory Act was passed, each by a large majority. CHAPTER III "No Taxation Without Representation" [controversy between the colonial assemblies and parliament] The Townshend Taxes — John Dickinson [Pa.] and Josiah Quincy, Jr. [Mass.], oppose them — Declaration of the Massachusetts Assembly — Con troversy between Lord Hillsborough and James Otis [Mass.] — Non-im portation Agreement of Colonial Merchants — Eoyal Troops in the Col onies: Protest of Massachusetts Assembly — Parliament Demands Trial in England of Colonial Traitors: Protest of Virginia Assembly — "Ap peal to the World ' ' by Boston Citizens — All Taxes Eepealed Save on Tea — The Boston Massacre — The Boston Tea Party — Speech of Josiah Quincy, Jr.: "Let Us Look to the End" — Parliament Closes Boston Port, and Dissolves Massachusetts Assembly: Protest of Col. Isaac Barre: "Olive Branch or Sword I" — Colonial Protests against the Bills — First Continental Congress Assembles: Its Addresses and Peti tions — Eloquence of Patrick Henry [Va.] — Debate over Plan for Govern ment of Colonies by Crown: in favor, Joseph Galloway [Pa.], John Jay [N. Y.], Edward Eutledge [S. C] ; opposed, Henry; it is defeated. IN July, 1766, a new administration was formed in the British Government under the direction of Wil liam Pitt, who was made Earl of Chatham. Com posed of men of different political parties, the Tory ele ment was strong enough to revive the subject of taxing America. In IMay, 1767, Charles Townshend, chancel lor of the exchequer, under the instigation of Ex-]\Iin- ister George Grenville, submitted to the House of Com mons a bill imposing duties on glass, paper, painters' materials, and tea, imported into the colonies, its preamble declaring that the impost was to defray the expenses of defending these provinces. Owing probably to Lord Chatham's absence from sickness, the bill passed both Houses without much opposition in June. Royal commissioners were appointed for the colonies 68 TAXATION AND REPRESENTATION 69 to superintend the execution of all the laws of Parlia ment relating to American trade. These acts created a great stir in the colonies. John Dickinson of Pennsylvania wrote in a homely style, cal culated to appeal to the common people, "Letters of a Pennsylvania Farmer," which presented the unconsti tutionality as well as the injustice of the acts. They were universally read in America, and, translated into French, they greatly inclined the people of France toward the American cause. Josiah Quincy, Jr., a young Boston lawyer, published in the Boston Gazette a series of extremely able articles against the "Townshend Acts," under the pen-name of "Hyperion." The most eloquent of these articles was Quincy 's "Appeal," which appeared in the Boston Gazette of October 3, 1768. Appeal to Americans josiah quincy, jr. If ever there was a time, this is the hour for Americans to rouse themselves and exert every ability. Their all is at a haz ard, and the die of fate spins doubtful ! In vain do we talk of magnanimity and heroism; in vain do we trace a descent from the worthies of the earth, if we inherit not the spirit of our an cestors. Who is he who boasteth of his patriotism? Has he vanquished luxury, and subdued the worldly pride of his heart? Is he not yet drinking the poisonous draught and rolling the sweet morsel under his tongue? He who cannot conquer the little vanity of his heart, and deny the delicacy of a debauched palate, let him lay his hand upon his mouth, and his mouth in the dust. Now is the time for this people to summon every aid, human and divine; to exhibit every moral virtue, and call forth every Christian grace. The wisdom of the serpent, the innocence of the dove, and the intrepidity of the lion, with the blessing of God, wiU yet save us from the jaws of destruction. Where is the boasted liberty of Englishmen, if property may be disposed of, charters suspended, assemblies dissolved, and every valued right annihilated, at the uncontrollable will of an external power? Does not every man who feels one ethereal 70 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES spark yet glowing in his bosom find his indignation kindle at the bare imagination of such wi'ongs? Wliat would be our senti ments were this imagination realized? Did the blood of the ancient Britons swell our veins, did the spirit of our forefathers inliabit our breasts, should we hesitate a moment in preferring death to a miserable existence in bond age? Did we reflect on their toils, thoir dangers, their fiery trials, the thought would inspire unconquerable courage. "^Mio has the front to ask, "wherefore do you complain"? Who dares assert everything worth living for is not lost when a nation is enslaved ? Are not pensioners, stipendiaries, and salary men (unknown before) hourly multiplying on us, to riot in the spoils of miserable America? Does not every eastern gnle waft us some new insect, even of that devouring kind which eat up every green thing? Is not the bread taken out of the chil dren's mouths, and given unto the dogs? .\re not our estates given to corrupt sycophants, without a design, or even a pre tence, of soliciting our assent, and our lives put into the hands of those whose tender mercies are cruelties? Has not an au thority in a distant land, in the most public manner, proclaimed a right of disposing of the all of Americans? In short, what have we to lose — what have wo to fear? Are not our distresses more than we can bear ; and, to finish all, are not our cities, in a time of profound peace, filled with standing armies, to preclude us from that last solace of the wretched — to open their mouths in complaint, and send forth their cries in bitterness of heart? But is there no ray of hope ? Is not Great Britain inhabited by the children of those renowned barons who waded through seas of crimson gore to establish their liberty ; and will they not allow us, their fellow-men, to enjoy that freedom which we claim from nature, which is confirmed by our constitution, and which they pretend so highly to value? Were a t>'rant to conquer us, the chains of slavery, when opposition should become useless, might be supportable; but to be shackled by Englishmen — by our equals — is not to be borne ! By the sweat of our brow we earn the little we possess : from nature we derive the common rights of man — and by charter we claim the liberties of Britons? Shall we, dare we, pusillani- mously surrender our birthright? Is the obligation to our fathers discharged — is the debt we owe posterity paid ? Answer me, thou coward, who hidest thyself in the hour of trial. If there is no reward in this life, no prize of glory in the next, capable of animating thy dastard soul ; think and tremble, thou miscreant, at the whips and stripes thy master shall lash thee TAXATION AND REPRESENTATION 71 with on earth — and the flames and scorpions thy second master shall torment thee with hereafter ! Oh, my countrymen ! what will our children say, when they read the history of these times, should they find we tamely gave away, without one noble struggle, the most invaluable of earthly blessings? As they drag the galling chain, will they not exe crate us ? If we have any respect for things sacred ; any regard to the dearest treasure on earth — if we have one tender senti ment for posterity; if we would not be despised by the whole world — let us, in the most open, solemn manner, and with deter mined fortitude, swear we will die, if we cannot live freemen ! Be not lulled, my countrymen, with vain imaginations, or idle fancies. To hope for the protection of heaven, without doing our duty, and exerting ourselves as becomes men, is to mock the Deity. Wherefore had man his reason, if it were not to direct him? Wherefore his strength, if it be not his protec tion? To banish folly and luxury, correct vice and immorality, and stand immovable in the freedom in which we are free in deed is eminently the duty of each individual, at this day. When this is done we may rationally hope for an answer to our prayers ; for the whole counsel of God, and the invincible armor of the Almighty. However righteous our cause we cannot, in this period of the world, expect a miraculous salvation. Heaven will undoubtedly assist us, if we act like men ; but to expect protection from above, while we are enervated by luxury, and slothful in the exertion of those abilities with which we are endued, is an expectation vain and foolish. With the smiles of Heaven, virtue, unanimity, and firmness vtIU ensue success. While we have equity, justice, and God on our side, tyranny, spiritual or temporal, shall never ride triumphant in a land inhabited by Englishmen. The Massachusetts House of Representatives in Jan uary, 1768, protested to the King and the Ministry against the new taxes, on the ground that the colonies were not represented in the Parliament which enacted them. They said : The original contract between the King and the first planters here was a royal promise in behalf of the nation, and which, till very lately, was never questioned, but the King had the power to make, namely, that "if the adventurers would, at their own cost and expense, and at the hazard of their lives, and everything dear to them, purchase a new world, subdue a wilderness, and 72 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES thereby enlarge the King's dominions, they and their posterity should enjoy such rights and privileges as in their charter are expressed ; which are, in general, all the rights, liberties, and privileges of His Majesty's natural born subjects, within the realm. ' ' The principal privileges implied, and in some of their char ters expressed, is a freedom from all taxes but such as they shall consent to, in person, or by representatives of their own choice and election. In reference to the appropriation of the new duties to the support of Crown officers and to the maintenance of troops in America the Assembly said : Such a power under a corrupt administration, it is feared, would introduce an absolute government in America; at least, it would leave the people in a state of uncertainty of their security, which is far from being a state of civil liberty. The judges in the several colonies do not hold their commissions dur ing good behavior. If, then, they are to have their salaries independent of the people, how easy it will be for a corrupt governor to have a set of judges to his mind, to deprive a bench of justice of its glory and the people of their security. The House, during the same session, also addressed a circular letter to the colonies, stating the difficulties to be apprehended by the operation of the late acts of Parliament; and requesting their cooperation for re dress. The other colonies approved of the proceedings of Massachusetts, and joined in applying to the King for relief. The Petitioners Rebuked The circular letter of Massachusetts created no little alarm in the British cabinet. They viewed it as an at tempt to convene another congress, to concert measures in opposition to the authority of Parliament. Union and concert among the colonies was a peculiar object of dread with the ministers ; and they were determined, if possible, to prevent every measure leading to it. A letter from Lord Hillsborough, Secretary of State, was therefore addressed to the Governor of Massachusetts, TAXATION AND REPRESENTATION 73 directing him at the next meeting of the General As sembly of that colony "to require of the House of Rep resentatives, in His Majesty's name, to rescind the reso lution which gave birth to the circular letter of the speaker, and to declare their disapprobation of, and dissent to, that rash and hasty proceeding." If the House refused compliance, he was directed immediately to dissolve the Assembly, and to transmit their proceed ings to the King, that measures might be taken to pre vent for the future "a conduct of so extraordinary and unconstitutional a nature." A circular letter was, at the same time, addressed to the governors of the other colonies declaring this measure of the people of Massachusetts "to be of a most dangerous and factious tendency, calculated to en- flame the minds of His Majesty's good subjects in the colonies, to promote an unwarrantable combination, and to excite and encourage an open opposition to, and de nial of, the authority of Parliament, and to subvert the true principles of the constitution"; directing them, also, to exert their utmost influence, to defeat "this flagitious attempt to disturb the public peace," by pre vailing upon the assemblies to take no notice of it, and thereby treat it with the contempt it deserved. Replies op the Colonies The House of Representatives of Massachusetts in June, 1768, peremptorily refused to rescind the proceed ings of the preceding Assembly, declaring their right as British subjects in a respectful manner to petition the King and Parliament for a redress of grievances, and to request the other colonies to unite with them for the same purpose. They also addressed a letter to Lord Hillsborough, giving him a detailed account of the trans action, and repelling the suggestion made by hini that the same was a rash and flagitious attempt to disturb the public peace. The House viewed the letter of Lord Hillsborough as an unwarrantable attempt on their rights; and, in their answer to the communication of the Governor on this subject, expressed themselves with 74 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES no little warmth. "If the votes of the House were to be controlled by the direction of a minister," said these bold inheritors of the spirit of Pym and Hampden, "we have left us but a shadow of liberty!" On the question to rescind, James Otis said: "When Lord Hillsborough knows that we will not rescind our acts, let him apply to Parliament to rescind theirs. Let Britain rescind their measures, or they are lost for ever. ' ' The ministerial mandate to the other colonies was equally disregarded. Non-Importation Agreement During the summer of this year (1768), the mer chants of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New York, and, later, of Pennsylvania and other colonies, again had recourse to a non-importation agreement, particu larly with respect to the articles on which duties were imposed. This was done, not only to obtain a repeal of the late revenue act, but with a view of encouraging manufactures in the colonies. Royal Troops in the Colonies From 1765, when soldiers had been quartered on some of the colonies by act of Parliament, the provin cial assemblies concerned had made repeated protests against their presence, and on constitutional grounds had refused to vote money for their maintenance. This greatly angered the British Government, and in July, 1767, Parliament inhibited the Massachusetts Assem bly, which had been particularly obstinate, from pass ing any act whatever until it had voted supplies to the royal troops. On the rumor that new troops were coming to Bos ton to enforce the acts of Parliament, a convention rep resenting 96 Massachusetts towns met in Boston on September 22, 1768, and protested to the King against such coercion. They denied that they were inspired by a desire for independence. TAXATION AND REPRESENTATION 75 "We clearly hold that the sovereignty of His Sacred Ma jesty, King George the Third, is entire in all parts of the British empire: God forbid that we should ever act or wish anything in oppugnation of the same. We appear as plain honest men, humbly soliciting peace and order. We wish ever to promote and cultivate a harmony and union between Great Britain and the colonies." On the 15th of December, 1768, the House of Lords passed a number of resolutions severely censuring the conduct of the people of Massachusetts, and declaring in particular that the proceedings of Boston in calling a convention -were subversive of His Majesty's Govern ment and manifested a design to set up a new and un constitutional authority independent of the Crown of Great Britain; and that the meeting of the convention w^as a daring insult offered to His Majesty's authority, and an audacious usurpation of the powers of govern ment. These resolutions were, about the first of February, agreed to by the House of Commons; and a joint ad dress was at the time presented to the King, request ing him to direct the Governor of Massachusetts to transmit to the British Government full information "touching all treasons" in the province, in order that the accused parties might be tried "within the realm," if His Majesty "saw sufficient ground for such a pro ceeding. ' ' The King in answer to this address assured Parlia ment of his determination to give the necessary orders for bringing the authors of the unhappy disorders in Massachusetts to condign punishment. Though these proceedings of Parliament pointed principally to Massachusetts, yet all the colonists con sidered themselves as deeply affected and were more firmly united than ever in opposition to this extraordi nary claim of right to transport the colonists to Eng land for trial for supposed offences committed in Amer ica. The House of Burgesses in Virginia, early in May, 1769, declared that the sending of a colonist suspected of crime "beyond the seas to be tried is highly deroga- 76 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES tory of the rights of British subjects, as thereby the in estimable privilege of trial by a jury from the vicinage, as well as the liberty of producing witnesses on such trial, will be taken away from the party accused." The House of Burgesses also prepared a petition to the King on this subject, couched in strong and feeling language. Duties Removed Save on Tea The British Ministry, becoming alarmed at the spirit of resistance in the colonies, had promised, in a circular letter to the colonial governors, that, as a matter of pure commercial policy. Parliament would remove all taxes save on tea (which was retained to maintain the right of Parliament to tax America). The various as semblies repudiated this as not being a concession of the principle for which they contended. On October 4, 1769, the people of Boston, in a town meeting, published ' ' An Appeal to the World, ' ' in which they not only vindicated themselves from the "false, scandalous and infamous libels" upon them, contained, as they said, in some of the letters of Governor Ber nard and others laid before Parliament; but also de clared "that the taking off the duties on paper, glass and colors, merely on commercial principles, would not be satisfactory; that it would not relieve trade from its burdens, much less remove the grounds of discontent which prevailed through the continent, upon higher principles." "Their rights," they said, "are invaded by those acts; there fore until they are all repealed the cause of their just complaints cannot be removed. In short, the grievances which lie heavily upon us we shall never think redressed till every act passed by the British Parliament for the express purpose of raising a revenue upon us without our consent is repealed; till the Ameri can board of commissioners of the customs is dissolved, the troops recalled, and things are restored to the state they were in before the late extraordinary measures of administration took place. ' ' The merchants of Philadelphia in November of this year, in a letter to the merchants of London, not only TAXATION AND REPRESENTATION 77 vindicated themselves and the colonists in general from aspersions cast upon them by Governor Bernard and others, but on the subject of the right of Parliament to impose taxes or duties upon them in any way ex pressed themselves in bold and determined language : "Nothing short of a repeal of all the revenue acts, and put ting things on the footing they were before the late innovations, can or will satisfy the minds of the people. Fleets and armies may overawe our towns, admiralty courts and boards of com missioners, with their swarms of underlings, may, by a vigorous execution of the same unconstitutional acts, ruin our commerce and render America of little use to the people of Britain; but while every farmer is a freeholder the spirit of liberty will pre vail, and every attempt to divest them of their privileges of free men must be attended with consequences injurious to the colonies and the mother country." Repeal of All Taxes Save on Tea Parliament again met on the 9th of January, 1770, and soon after the Duke of Grafton, First Lord of the Treasury, resigned, and the celebrated Lord North was appointed in his room. Though the speech from the throne declared that combinations still existed to de stroy the commercial connection between Great Britain and her colonies, and though America was not yet "prostrate at the feet of the Ministry," Lord North himself, on the 5th of March, 1770, introduced a bill taking off the duties imposed by the act of 1767 on all the articles except tea. This partial repeal, which took place on the 12th of April, though not satisfac- torv, served in some measure to tranquilize the minds of the Americans. The insignificant duty on tea was continued for the purpose of maintaining the supremacy of Parliament, and, like a peppercorn rent, was reserved to show the tenure by which the colonists held their rights. The House of Burgesses in Virginia in a peti tion to the King declared that a partial suspension of the duties would not remove their too well grounded fears and apprehensions while that on tea was retained "for the avowed purpose of establishing a precedent against them." 78 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES The Boston Massacre As a result of the irritating presence of the royal troops in Boston a quarrel arose on March 5, 1770, be tween them and some of the citizens, in which eleven persons were either killed or wounded. Captain Preston and others of the soldiers were indicted for murder, BOSTON MASSACKE COFFINS The initials are for the slain Bostonians, e. g., C A represents Crispus Attucks, the mulatto who led the mob From the "American Historical Record" but were acquitted largely owing to the eloquent de fence made by their counsel, John Adams and Josiah Quincy, Jr. The anniversary of the event was observed annually for a number of years. The orations upon these occasions were wont to be inflammatory. Speeches by John Hancock and Dr. Joseph Warren were notably so. The Boston Tea-pabty The application by the colonists to the remaining tax, that on tea, caused the importation of the article into the colonies to cease, and the British Ministry began to devise means for forcing its introduction into America that the sovereignty of Parliament might be practically asserted. In May, 1773, the Ministry procured an act of Par liament permitting the East India Company to export their teas to America, with a drawback of all the duties paid in England. By thus rendering the article cheaper in the colonies than in Great Britain it was supposed TAXATION AND REPRESENTATION 79 the Americans would be induced to pay the smaU duty upon it. Concerning this act, a correspondence committee of Massachusetts, instituted for the purpose of fostering a common resistance among the colonies, wrote: We cannot close without mentioning a fresh instance of the temper and design of the British ministry in allowing the East India Company, with a view of conciliating them, to ship their teas to America. It is easy to see how aptly this scheme will serve both to destroy the trade of the colonies and increase the revenue. How necessary, then, it is that each colony should take effectual methods to prevent this measure from having its designed effects. In consequence of this act the company shipped large quantities of tea to different parts of the colonies, con signed to their particular friends or the friends of government, to be sold for their benefit. The shipments were principally made to (Charleston, Philadelphia, New York and Boston. The colonists at once perceived that if the tea was permitted to be landed the duty must be paid, and that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to prevent its sale and consumption, and so they re solved that the tea should not be landed. On its arrival at Charleston it was indeed landed and put into stores, but the consignees were not permitted to offer it for sale. Such was the determined opposition at Phila delphia and New York that the consignees at these places declined taking charge of it. and the vessels with the tea on board returned to Great Britain without an entry at the custom house. The citizens of Boston held several town meetings at which they passed resolutions declaring that the tea should not be landed, or the duty paid, but be returned in the same vessels in which it came without an entry; they also declared they would support these resolutions at the risk of Me and prop erty, and they directed the captains of the vessels not to land the tea. but to apply for clearances without an entry of the vessels or cargoes. The collector, however, refused such applications, and the governor gave orders to Admiral Montague, then in the harbor of Boston, to guard aU the passes out. and also directed the com- 80 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES mander of the Castle to suffer no vessel except coasters to pass without a permit signed by himself. In the meantime the people of Boston for many nights kept watch at the wharves to prevent the landing of the tea. In this situation the leaders came to the bold resolution of destroying the tea itself. On December 16 many thousands of the inhabitants of Boston and its vicinity met in the Old South Meeting house and confirmed their former resolutions against the landing of the tea. During this meeting the captain of one of the vessels was sent, for the last time, to the governor, then at his seat at Milton, to request a passport. The patriotic leaders, fully aware of the momentous consequences of the refusal of the Governor, had already anticipated them. During the absence of the messenger, and while the people assembled on the occasion were waiting his return with extreme solicitude, Josiah Quincy, Jr., addressed them. Mr. Quincy began his speech by reminding his hearers of the consequences of the act which they were about to perform. Let Us Look to the End josiah quincy, jr. It is not the spirit that vapors within these walls that must stand us in stead. The exertions of this day will call forth events which will make a very different spirit necessary for our salva tion. Look to the end. Whoever supposes that shouts and hosannas will terminate the trials of the day entertains a childish fancy. We must be grossly ignorant of the importance and value of the prize for which we contend; we must be equally ignorant of the powers of those who have combined against us; we must be blind to that malice, inveteracy, and insatiable re venge which actuate our enemies, public and private, abroad and in our bosoms, to hope we shall end this controversy without the sharpest conflicts; to flatter ourselves that popular resolves, popular harangues, popular acclamations, and popular vapor will vanquish our fears. Let us consider the issue. Let us look to the end. Let us weigh and consider before we advance to TAXATION AND REPRESENTATION 81 those measures which must bring on the most trying and terrible struggle this country ever saw. I see the clouds which now rise thick and fast on the horizon ; the thunders roll, and the lightnings play, and to that God who rides on the whirlwind and directs the storm I commit my country. When it was announced that the governor refused the passport Samuel Adams said, "This meeting can do nothing more to save the country." A war-whoop sounded from the gallery; the meeting was dissolved. Some one remarked, "Who knows how tea will mingle with salt-water?" and immediately after two or three different parties of men, previously selected, no doubt, some of them dressed in the habit of Indians, ran to ward the wharves shouting, "To Griffin's wharf! Boston harbor a teapot to-night!" There the people repaired, and in three hours the tea was emptied from its 342 chests into the waters of the ocean in the pres ence of thousands of spectators. This being done, the people returned quietly to their dwellings. The next day Boston rang its bells, fired guns, and beat drums in celebration of the event. Samuel Adams said, "Oh, this is the most magnificent movement of all!" Lesser celebrations occurred in New York and Philadelphia and even in the Southern cities. On the 7th of March, 1774, the papers relating to these transactions in America were laid before Parlia ment by the King. In his message to the two houses His Majesty said that he confided not only in their taking such measures as would "put an immediate stop to the present disorders," but also in their considering "what further provisions may be necessary to be established for securing the execution of the laws, and the just dependence of the colonies upon the Crown and Parliament of Great Britain." The Boston Port Bill Both houses in their answers assured His Majesty of their determination to make such provision as should secure the just dependence of the colonies and due 82 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES obedience to the laws throughout all his dominions. On the 31st of March a bill which had passed both houses interdicting all commercial intercourse with the town of Boston, and, after the first of June following, pro hibiting the landing or shipping any goods at that port, received the sanction of the King. Regulation of Massachusetts Government Soon after the passage of the "Boston Port Bill," as it was called, the Ministry presented a bill "for the better regulating the government of the province of Massachusetts Bay." This bill passed both houses by large majorities, and on the 20th of May became a law by the assent of the King. By this act the people of Massachusetts were, with out a hearing, deprived of some of the most important rights and privileges secured to them by their charter; rights which they had enjoyed from the first settlement of the colony. The members of the council, heretofore under the charter chosen by the General Assembly, were now to be selected by the King ; and the right of selecting jurors by the inhabitants of the several towns was taken from them. No part of this act, however, or, indeed, of any other act of the British Government, was more deeply felt by every freeholder in Massachusetts than that re lating to town meetings. The liberty of convening at pleasure, which they considered as their sacred birth right, was taken from them, for, by this act, no town meeting could be called without leave of the governor, except the annual meeting in March or May. To secure the due execution of the laws in the colonies some further provision was deemed necessary by Par liament. A third law therefore soon after passed, "for the impartial administration of justice in the cases of persons qiiestioned, for any acts done by them, in the execution of the law, or for the suppression of riots and tumults in the province of Massachusetts Bay." By this act persons informed against, or indicted for any act done, for the support of the laws of the TAXATION AND REPRESENTATION 83 revenue, or for the suppression of riots in Massa chusetts, might, by the governor, with the advice of the council, be sent for trial to any other colony or to Great Britain. These bUls, however, did not pass without opposition in both houses. Col. Barre addressed the Ministry on the last bill in his bold and energetic language. Olive Branch or Sword? COL. ISAAC babee "You have changed your ground. You are becoming the aggressors," he said, "and offering the last of human outrages to the people of America by subjecting them to military execu tion. Instead of sending them the olive branch you have sent the naked sword. By the olive branch I mean a repeal of all the late laws, fruitless to you and oppressive to them. Ask their aid in a constitutional manner and they will give it to the ut most of their ability. They never yet refused it when properly required. Your journals bear the recorded acknowledgments of the zeal with which they have contributed to the general neces sities of the state. What madness is it that prompts you to attempt obtaining that by force which you may more certainly procure by requisition. They may be flattered into anything, but they are too much like yourselves to be driven. Have some indulgence for your own likeness; respect their sturdy English virtue ; retract your odious exertions of authority ; and remember that the flrst step toward making them contribute to your wants is to reconcile them to your government. ' ' Colonial Opposition to the Port Bill General Thomas Gage was appointed governor of Massachusetts. He arrived there about the middle of May, and was politely received by the inhabitants of Boston. The Port Bill came over at the same time, and a meeting of the people of Boston was immediately held to take it into consideration. They resolved, among other things, "that the impolicy, in justice, inhumanity, and cruelty of the act exceed all their powers of expression ; and therefore we leave it to the censure of others, and appeal to God and the world." 84 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES They also declared it as their opinion that, "if the other colonies come into a joint resolution to stop all importation from, and exportation to. Great Britain and every part of the West Indies, till the act be repealed, the same would prove the salva tion of North America and her liberties. ' ' These resolutions, with the act itself, were imme diately circulated through the colonies; and the severe interdict against the people of Boston excited universal indignation throughout America. In various ways the other colonies expressed their sympathies, sending their suffering neighbors provisions and money, and passing resolutions condemning their persecution. The House of Burgesses in Virginia, being in session, appointed the first of June, the day the port of Boston was to be shut, as a day of "fasting, humiliation, and prayer, devoutly to implore the divine interposition for averting the heavy calamity which threatened destruc tion to their civil rights and the evils of a civil war; to give them one heart and one mind to oppose by all just and proper means every injury to American rights." During an after-meeting of the Assembly, George Washington stated that he was ready at his own expense to raise one thousand men and march to the relief of Boston. The Call for a Colonial Congress The advantage of committees of correspondence was perceived on this occasion. The patriotic Vir ginians recommended to their committee to correspond with the committees of the other colonies on the ex pediency of appointing representatives from all the colonies to meet annually in a general congress to de liberate on those measures which the united interests of America might from time to time require. The Assembly of Massachusetts met on the last of May, and the new governor, after negativing thirteen of the councillors, adjourned the assembly to meet at Salem on the 7th of June. Soon after their meeting at this place the House of Representatives, on motion of Samuel Adams, resolved : TAXATION AND REPRESENTATION 85 That a meeting of the committees from the several colonies on this continent is highly expedient and necessary to consult upon the present state of the colonies, and the miseries to which they are and must be reduced by the operation of certain acts of Parliament, respecting America ; and to deliberate and deter mine upon proper measures, to be by them recommended to all the colonies, for the recovery and establishment of their just rights and liberties, civil and religious, and the restoration of that union and harmony, between Great Britain and the colonies, most ardently desired by all good men. The house immediately appointed a committee of five, Thomas Cushing, Samuel Adams, Robert Treat Paine, James Bowdoin and John Adams, to meet similar delegates from the other colonies at Philadelphia, or any other suitable place, on the first of the succeeding September. The governor, having obtained information of what was going on in the house, sent his secretary to dissolve the assembly, but finding the doors closed he was obliged to read his proclamation on the steps leading to the chamber where the representatives were convened for the last time under royal authority. The members did not disperse until they had finished their important business. The expediency and even the necessity of a general congress and a more intimate union of the colonies was perceived by all, and in the course of the summer dele gates were appointed either by the regular assemblies or by conventions of the people in all the colonies except Georgia to attend a congress to be held in Philadelphia in September. Resolutions op Virginia The convention of Virginia, composed of deputies from all parts of the colony, met on the first of Au gust. It not only appointed some of her distinguished citizens to attend this congress, but entered into a num ber of resolutions, and formed an association in which they engaged after the first day of November, 1774, that they would not import from Great Britain any goods whatever (medicines excepted) or from any other place any British manufactures, or any article which should 86 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES have been brought into such place from Great Britain; and that if, before the 10th of August, 1775, American grievances should not be redressed, they would not after that day export tobacco or any other article to that country. To this convention Thomas Jefferson submitted in structions to the delegates to the Continental Congress, maintaining that the Parliament of Virginia had as much right to pass laws for the government of England as the British Parliament had to pass laws for the government of Virginia. These instructions, though not adopted, were published in a pamphlet which Edmund Burke reprinted with amendments and additions of his own and circulated throughout England. They pro cured for Jefferson, to use his own words, ' ' the honor of having his name inserted in a long list of proscriptions enrolled in a bill of attainder." Though many influential colonists, among them John Dickinson, were still desirous of a reconciliation with the parent country on terms mutually advantageous, many of the leading and intelligent patriots of Massa chusetts were now convinced that force must decide the contest. John Adams held this opinion. In conversing with Samuel Adams immediately after their appoint ment to the general congress he said: "I suppose we must go to Philadelphia and enter into non-importation, non-consumption, and non-expor tation agreements ; but they will be of no avail ; we shall have to resist by force. ' ' While the people of Boston were suffering from the loss of their commerce the act depriving them of their charter rights arrived. To this act the people deter mined never to submit. As a result of their menacing attitude the royal councillors were obliged either to resign or seek protection in Boston. The grand and petit jurors, when summoned to attend the courts under the new order of things, refused to take the oaths required or to act. In some of the counties the people would not permit the courts to be held by unconstitu tional judges. They assembled on the days of the ses sion of the courts in such numbers as to fill the avenues TAXATION AND REPRESENTATION 87 to the court houses, and when the sheriffs commanded them to give place for the judges they refused, declar ing ' ' that they knew of no court, nor any other establish- THE ABLE DOCTOB, OE AMEKICA SWALLOWING THE BITTER DRAUGHT ment, independent of the ancient laws and usages of their country, and to none other would they submit or give way on any account." The First Continental Congress On September 1, 1774, the delegates to the general congress convened at Philadelphia. A committee was appointed to state the rights of the colonies in general, the several instances in which those rights had been violated, and the means most proper to be pursued for obtaining a restoration of them. In regard to the action of General Gage in raising fortifications around Boston and in preventing a free communication with that town the congress not only addressed a letter to the general requesting him to discontinue such fortifications, but also passed a resolution approving of the opposition of the inhabitants of Massachusetts to the execution of the late, acts of Parliament, and declaring that, "if the same shall be attempted to be carried into execution by force, 88 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES in such case all America ought to support them in their opposition." On the 14th of October the members of this congress with unexampled unanimity declared: That the inhabitants of the English colonies in North Amer ica, by the immutable laws of nature, the principles of the Eng lish constitution, and the several charters or compacts, have the following rights : 1. That they are entitled to life, liberty, and property ; and they have never ceded to any foreign power whatever a right to dispose of either without their consent. 2. That our ancestors, who first settled these colonies, were, at the time of their emigration from the mother country, en titled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities of free and nat ural born subjects within the realm of England. 3. That by such emigration they by no means forfeited, sur rendered, or lost any of those rights, but that they were, and their descendants now are, entitled to the exercise and enjoyment of all such of them as their local and other circumstances enable them to exercise and enjoy. 4. That the foundation of English liberty and of all free governments is a right in the people to participate in their legis lative council ; and, as the English colonists are not represented, and from their local and other circumstances cannot properly be represented in the British Parliament, they are entitled to a free and exclusive power of legislation in their several provincial legislatures, where their right of representation can alone be preserved in all cases of taxation and internal policy, subject only to the negative of their sovereign in such manner as has been heretofore used and accustomed. But, from the necessity of the case and a regard to the mutual interest of both countries, we cheerfully consent to the operation of such acts of the British Parliament as are, bona fide, restrained to the regulation of our external commerce for the purpose of securing the commercial advantages of the whole empire to the mother country, and the commercial benefits of its respective members; excluding every idea of taxation internal or external for raising a revenue on the subjects in America without their consent. 5. That the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and, more especially, to the great and inestima ble privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinity accord ing to the course of that law. 6. That they are entitled to the benefit of such of the Eng- TAXATION AND REPRESENTATION 89 lish statutes as existed at the time of their colonization; and which they have, by experience, respectively found to be applic able to their several local and other circumstances. 7. That these. His Majesty's colonies, are likewise entitled to all the immunities and privileges granted and confirmed to them by royal charters, or secured by their several codes of provincial laws. 8. That they have a right peaceably to assemble, consider of their grievances, and petition the King; and that all prosecu tions, prohibitory proclamations, and commitments for the same are illegal. 9. That the keeping a standing army in these colonies in times of peace without the consent of the legislature of that colony in which such army is kept is against law. 10. It is indispensably necessary to good government, and rendered essential by the English constitution, that the constitu ent branches of the legislature be independent of each other; that, therefore, the exercise of legislative power in several colo nies, by a council appointed during pleasure by the Crown, is unconstitutional, dangerous, and destructive to the freedom of American legislation. All and each of which the aforesaid deputies, in behalf of themselves and their constituents, do claim, demand, and insist on as their indubitable rights and liberties; which cannot be legally taken from them, altered or abridged by any power what ever without their consent by their representatives in their sev eral provincial legislatures. Then after enumerating the various acts of Parlia ment which were violations of their rights they pro ceeded to say: To these grievous acts and measures America cannot submit ; but, in hopes their fellow subjects in Great Britain will on a re vision of them restore us to that state in which both countries found happiness and prosperity, we have for the present only resolved to pursue the following peaceable measures: 1. To enter into a non-importation association. 2. To prepare an ad dress to the people of Great Britain, and a memorial to the in habitants of British America ; and, 3. To prepare a loyal address to His Majesty, agreeably to resolutions already entered into. The articles relating to American rights received the unanimous assent of Congress with the exception of the fourth. 90 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES This article produced no little debate, and on the last clause of it perfect unanimity did not prevail. The delegates from Massachusetts had been too much en gaged in the controversy with Governor Hutchinson on the great question of parliamentary power to agree to this qualifying clause. This contest had satisfied them that it was difficult, if not impossible, to draw a satis factory line between a duty laid for the regulation of commerce and for revenue. A non-importation agreement was signed by all the members of this Congress including a pledge not to use any of the prohibited goods nor to consume any tea upon which duty had been paid. In case the acts complained of should not be repealed by the 10th day of September, 1775, they agreed not to export to Great Britain, -Ireland, or the West Indies any commodities or merchandise whatever, although they would continue sending rice to Europe. The following was said in conclusion: And we do solemnly bind ourselves and our constituents, under the ties aforesaid, to adhere to this association until such parts of the several acts of Parliament [objected to] are repealed. And we recommend it to the provincial conventions, and to the committees in the respective colonies, to establish such farther regulations as they may think proper for carrying into execution this association. Lord Chatham, in referring to this celebrated con vention, declared that though he had studied and ad mired the free states of antiquity, the master spirits of the world, "yet for solidity of reasoning, force of sagacity, and wisdom of conclusion, no body of men could stand in preference to this congress." Patrick Henry's Eloquence The loss of Patrick Henry's speech at the opening of the Congress is especially deplorable, as it was the one which gave him national reputation. An account of its deliverance however has fortunately been preserved. TAXATION AND REPRESENTATION 91 "Mr. Henry rose slowly, as if borne down by the weight of the subject, and, after faltering, according to his habit, through a most impressive exordium, he launched gradually into a recital of the colonial wrongs. Rising, as he advanced, with the grandeur of his subject, and glowing at length with all the majesty and expectation of the occasion, his speech seemed more than that of mortal man. There was no rant, no rhapsody, no labor of the understanding, no straining of the voice, no con fusion of the utterance. His countenance was erect, his eye steady, his action noble, his enunciation clear and firm, his mind poised on its center, his views of his subject comprehensive and great, and his imagination coruscating with a magnificence and a variety which struck even that assembly with amazement and awe. He sat down amid murmurs of astonishment and applause ; and as he had been before proclaimed the greatest orator of Virginia, he was now, on every hand, admitted to be the first orator of America." The speech was on the method of voting in the con gress, whether it should be by colonies, by the poll of delegates, or by the various interests represented. The first method was adopted against the opposition of Henry. A fragment of his speech remains. It is the first breathing of the national spirit which would dis regard State lines where national interests are at stake. "Not a Virginian, But an American" PATRICK henry "Fleets and armies and the present state of things show that the government is dissolved. Where are your landmarks — your boundaries of colonies? We are in a state of nature! All dis tinctions are thrown down ; all America is thrown into one mass. The distinctions between Virginians, Pennsylvanians, New Yorkers, and New Englanders are no more. I am not a Vir ginian, but an American." Galloway's Plan of Union Henry's vehement opposition later in the session to a plan of union of the colonies proposed by Joseph Galloway, a wealthy lawyer of Philadelphia, and advo cated by John Jay, Edward Rutledge, and other con- 92 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES servatives, was probably instrumental in defeating it, as the vote was very close. The plan was similar to Franklin's Albany Plan of Union, proposed in 1754. It provided for a President-General, appointed by the Crown, and a grand council of representatives to be chosen by the colonial assemblies and to meet annually. The council was to have sole charge of internal colonial affairs, its other acts being subject to review by Parlia ment, although it in turn would have the right of veto over acts of Parliament relating to the colonies. Henry objected to the plan as a recognition of Parliament's right to rule the colonies, which he emphatically denied. Galloway afterwards justified the suspicion that he was secretly acting in the interests of Great Britain by turn ing Tory. Address to the British People In their address to the people of Great Britain, after enumerating the several acts of Parliament deemed violations of their rights, they appeal to the generosity, to the virtue, to the justice of the nation, for relief. They not only remind the people of the parent country of the immense benefits they had heretofore derived from a monopoly of colonial commerce, but call upon them to witness the loyalty and attachment of the colonists to the common interest of the empire. "Did we not," they ask, "in the last war, add all the strength of this vast continent to the force which repelled our common enemy? Did we not leave our native shores and meet disease and death to promote the success of British arms in foreign climates ? Did you not thank us for our zeal ; and even reimburse us large sums of money, which, you confessed, we had advanced beyond our proportion, and far beyond our ability ? ' ' After these appeals they repel the charges brought against them. "You have been told that we are seditious, impatient of government, and desirous of independency. Be assured," they said, "that these are not facts, but calumnies. Permit us to be as free as yourselves, and we shall ever esteem a union with you to be our greatest glory and our greatest happiness; we shall ever be ready to contribute all in our power to the welfare of the whole empire; we shall consider your enemies as our enemies, and your interest as our own." TAXATION AND REPRESENTATION 93 In conclusion, referring to the ministerial proceedings to ward the colonies, they say: "But if you are determined that your ministers shall wantonly sport with the rights of mankind — if neither the voice of justice, the dictates of the law, the princi ples of the constitution, nor the suggestions of humanity, can restrain your hands from shedding human blood in such an im pious cause, we must then tell you that we will never submit to be hewers of wood or drawers of water for any ministry or nation in the world. "Place us in the same situation that we were at the close of the late war and our former harmony will be restored. "But, lest the same supineness, and the same inattention to our common interest which you have for several years shown should continue, we think it necessary to anticipate the conse quences. "By the destruction of the trade of Boston the ministry have endeavored to induce submission to their measures. The like fate may befall us all. We will endeavor, therefore, to live without trade, and recur for subsistence to the fertility and bounty of our native soil, which will afford us all the necessaries and some of the conveniences of life. We have suspended our importation from Great Britain and Ireland ; and in less than a year's time, unless our grievances should be redressed, shall discontinue our exports to those kingdoms and the West Indies. " It is with the utmost regret, however, that we find ourselves compelled, by the over-ruling principles of self-preservation, to adopt measures detrimental in their consequences to numbers of our fellow subjects in Great Britain and Ireland. But we hope the magnanimity and justice of the British nation will furnish a Parliament of such wisdom, independence, and public spirit as may save the violated rights of the whole empire from the devices of wicked ministers and evil counselors, whether in or out of ofiSee, and thereby restore that harmony, friendship, and fraternal affection between all the inhabitants of His Majesty's kingdoms and territories so ardently wished for by every true and honest American." This address was prepared by John Jay of New York. Thomas Jefferson, while ignorant of the author ship of the address, said it was "a production certainly of the finest pen in America." 94 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES Address to the Kino The address to the King breathed a spirit of affec tion as well as loyalty. Nor did it contain the language of hypocrisy. They tell their sovereign their grievances and ask redress. "Had our Creator," they say, "been pleased to give us existence in a land of slavery, the sense of our condition might have been mitigated by ignorance and habit. But, thanks be to His adorable goodness, we were born the heirs of freedom, and ever enjoyed our right under the auspices of your royal ances tors whose family was settled on the British throne to rescue and secure a pious and gallant nation from the popery and despotism of a superstitious and inexorable tyrant. Your Majesty, we are confident, justly rejoices that your title to the crown is thus founded on the title of your people to liberty; and, therefore, we doubt not but your royal wisdom must ap prove the sensibility that teaches your subjects anxiously to guard the blessing they received from divine Providence, and thereby to prove the performance of that compact which ele vated the illustrious house of Brunswick to the imperial dignity it now possesses. "The apprehension of being degraded into a state of servi tude, from the preeminent rank of English freemen, while our minds retain the strongest love of liberty and clearly foresee the miseries preparing for us and our posterity, excites emotions in our breasts which, though we cannot describe, we should not wish to conceal. Feeling as men, and thinking as subjects, in the manner we do, silence would be disloyalty. By giving this faithful information we do all in our power to promote the great objects of your royal cares, the tranquillity of your government, and the welfare of your people. "Duty to Your Majesty and regard for the preservation of ourselves and our posterity, the primary obligations of nature and society, command us to entreat your royal attention; and, as Your Majesty enjoys the signal distinction of reigning over freemen, we apprehend the language of freemen cannot be dis pleasing. Your royal indignation, we hope, will rather fall on those designing and dangerous men who, daringly interposing themselves between your royal person and your faithful sub jects, and for several years past incessantly employed to dissolve the bonds of society by abusing Your Majesty's authority, mis representing your American subjects, and prosecuting the most TAXATION AND REPRESENTATION 95 desperate and irritating projects of oppression, have, at length, compelled us, by the force of accumulated injuries, too severe to be any longer tolerable, to disturb Your Majesty's repose by our complaints. "These sentiments are extorted from hearts that much more wiUingly would bleed in Your Majesty's service. Yet so greatly have we been misrepresented that a necessity has been alleged of taking our property from us without our consent, 'to defray the charge of the administration of justice, the support of civil government, and the defence, protection, and security of the colonies.' But we beg leave to assure Your Majesty that such provision has been, and will be, made for defraying the two first articles as has been and shall be judged by the legislatures of the several colonies just and suitable to their respective cir cumstances: and for the defence, protection, and security of the colonies, their militia, if properly regulated, as they earn estly desire may immediately be done, would be fully sufficient, at least in time of peace; and, in case of war, your faithful colonists will be ready and willing, as they ever have been, when constitutionally required, to demonstrate their loyalty to Your Majesty by exerting their most strenuous efforts in granting sup plies and raising forces. Yielding to no British subjects in affec tionate attachment to Your Majesty's person, family, and gov ernment, we too dearly prize the privilege of expressing that at tachment by those proofs that are honorable to the prince who receives them, and to the people who give them, ever to resign it to any body of men upon earth. "Had we been permitted to enjoy in quiet the inheritance left us by our forefathers, we should at this time have been peaceably, cheerfully, and usefully employed in recommending ourselves, by every testimony of devotion, to Your Majesty, and of veneration to the state from which we derive our origin. But, though now exposed to unexpected and unnatural scenes of distress by a contention with that nation in whose parental guidance on all important affairs we have hitherto with filial reverence constantly trusted, and, therefore, can derive no in struction in our present unhappy and perplexing circumstances from any former experience, yet we doubt not the purity of our intention and the integrity of our conduct will justify us at that grand tribunal before which all mankind must submit to judgment. "We ask but for peace, liberty, and safety. We wish not a diminution of the prerogative, nor do we solicit the grant of any new right in our favor. Your royal authority over us, and 96 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES our connection with Great Britain we shall always carefully and zealously endeavor to support and maintain. "Pilled with sentiments of duty to Your Majesty, and of affection to our parent state, deeply impressed by our education and strongly confirmed by our reason, and anxious to evince the sincerity of these dispositions, we present this petition only to obtain redress of grievances and relief from fears and jeal ousies occasioned by the system of statutes and regulations adopted since the close of the late war, ... by the abolition of which system the harmony between Great Britain and these colonies (so necessary to the happiness of both, and so ardently desired by the latter) , and the usual intercourse will be immedi ately restored. In the magnanimity and justice of Your Majesty and Parliament we confide for a redress of our other grievances, trusting that, when the causes of our apprehensions are removed, our future conduct will prove us not unworthy of the regard we have been accustomed to enjoy. In appealing to that Being who searches thoroughly the hearts of His creatures, we solemnly profess that our councils have been influenced by no other motive than a dread of impending destruction. "Permit us, then, most gracious sovereign, in the name of all your faithful people in America, with the utmost humility, to implore you, for the honor of Almighty God, whose pure religion our enemies are undermining; for your glory, which can be advanced only by rendering your subjects happy and keeping them united ; for the interests of your family, depending on an adherence to the principles that enthroned it; for the safety and welfare of your kingdoms and dominions, threatened with almost unavoidable dangers and distresses, that Your Majesty, as the loving father of your whole people, connected by the same bonds of law, loyalty, faith, and blood, though dwelling in various countries, will not suffer the transcendant relation formed by these ties to be further violated, in uncertain expectations of effects that, if obtained, never can compensate for the calamities through which they must be gained. "We, therefore, most earnestly beseech Your Majesty that your royal authority and interposition may be used for our relief, and that a gracious answer may be given to this petition. "That Your Majesty may enjoy every felicity, through a long and glorious reign, over loyal and happy subjects, and that your descendants may inherit your prosperity and dominions till time shall be no more, is, and always will be, our sincere and fervent prayer." TAXATION AND REPRESENTATION 97 The "Petition to the King" was written by John Dickinson. It was highly praised by Lord Chatham and others, one of whom said that "it will remain an imperishable monument to the glory of its author and of the assembly of which he was a member so long as fervid and manly eloquence and chaste and elegant com position shall be appreciated." Congress also delivered an "Address to the In habitants of Quebec," in which they endeavored to con vince them that a late act of Parliament respecting that province had deprived them of many of their rights and privileges, and to persuade them to unite in ob taining redress, and to join the confederacy. After directing the Address to the King to be sent to the several colony agents in England to be presented to His Majesty, and recommending that another Con gress be held on the 10th of May following, unless a redress of grievances should before that time be ob tained. Congress, on the 26th of October, dissolved. Effect of the Congress The proceedings of the Congress met with the almost unanimous approbation of the people of America. The non-importation agreement entered into by their dele gates was adopted as their own. Committees of vigilance were appointed in all the towns and districts, and the names of those who disregarded it were pub lished as the enemies of public liberty. The various colonial assemblies and, where these could not convene owing to the opposition of the governors, special provincial conventions endorsed the proceedings of the general Congress. In Massachusetts such a provincial convention took measures to put the colony in a state of defence, and sent Josiah Quincy, Jr., to England to confer with the English Whigs. A majority of the members of this Congress had little doubt that the measure taken by them, if sup ported by the American people, would produce a redress of grievances. George Washington was of opinion that with the aid 98 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES of both the non-importation and non-exportation system America would prevail. Richard Henry Lee said to John Adams, "We shall undoubtedly carry all our points. You will be completely relieved ; all the offensive acts will be repealed; the army and fleet will be recalled, and Britain will give up her foolish projects." Adams, however, together with his cousin Samuel, and Patrick Henry were not so sanguine, believing that the contest must ultimately be decided by force. It was with this conviction that John Adams said to a friend, on being elected as a delegate to the Congress: "As to my fate the die is cast, the Rubicon is passed — and sink or swim, live or die, to survive or perish with my country is my unalterable resolution. ' '^ 'Compare the "Supposed Speech of John Adams," by Daniel Webster, on page 194. CHAPTER IV Force or Conciliation I Lord Chatham Moves That the Troops Be Withdrawn from Boston; His Speech on the Motion. He Is Supported by Lords Camden and Shelburne and the Marquis of Rockingham; the Measure Is Defeated — Chatham Presents a Plan of Conciliation: His TUt with Lord Sandwich over the Character of Benjamin Franklin — British Petitions in Behalf of America Axe "Shelved," and Acts to "Crush Eebellion" Are Adopted — Prank- lin's Proposals for Eeconciliation — Conciliatory Plan of Lord North — Edmund Burke on "Conciliation with America" — His Eesolutions Are Defeated — His Speech on ' ' The Eight to Tax America. ' ' ANEW Parliament met on the 29th day of Novem ber, 1774. The King informed Parliament that a most daring resistance and disobedience to the law still prevailed in Massachusetts and had broken out in fresh violences; that these proceedings had been countenanced and encouraged in the other colonies, and that unwarrantable attempts had been made to obstruct the commerce of the kingdom by unlawful combinations, and he expressed his firm determination to withstand every attempt to weaken or impair the supreme author ity of Parliament over all the dominions of the Crown. Addresses in answer to the speech concurring in the sentiments expressed by the King were carried in both houses by large majorities. A committee was ap pointed to take the subject of colonial affairs into consideration. Josiah Quincy, Jr., not long after his arrival in England, had an interview with Lord North as well as Lord Dartmouth at their special request. The former, on the 19th of November, in conversa tion on the subject of American affairs, reminded Mr. Quincy of the power of Great Britain and that they were determined "to exert it to the utmost in order to effect the submission of the colonies." 99 100 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES "We must try," said he, "what we can do to support the authority we claim over America. If we are defective in power, we must sit down contented and make the best terms we can; and nobody can blame us after we have done our utmost; but tiU we have tried what we can do, we can never be justified in receding. ' ' Mr. Quincy from this conversation with the Prime Minister, as well as information obtained from other sources, was convinced that the Americans had nothing to hope but from forcible resistance, and communicated this conviction to some of his particular friends in America. In a letter to Joseph Reed of Philadelphia of the 17th of December he says: "But by no means entertain an idea that commercial plans, founded on commercial principles, are to be engines of your freedom or the security of your felicity. "Far different are the weapons with which oppression is repelled ; far more noble the sentiments and actions which secure liberty and happiness to man. "I cannot forbear telling you that I look to my countrymen with the feelings of one who verily believes they must yet seal their faith and constancy to their liberties with blood." Chatham's Motion to Remove the Troops Parliament, after the holiday recess, convened on the 20th of January, and on the same day Lord Chatham took his seat in the House of Lords and immediately moved : "That, in order to open the way toward our happy settle ment of the dangerous troubles in America by beginning to allay ferments and soften animosities there, and, above all, for pre venting in the meantime any sudden and fatal catastrophe at Boston, now suffering under daily irritation of an army before their eyes posted in their town, it may graciously please His Majesty that immediate orders may be dispatched to General Gage for removing His Majesty's forces from the town of Bos ton." FORCE OR CONCILIATION.? 101 This motion was supported by one of the most eloquent and impressive speeches ever delivered by that distinguished statesman and orator. On Removing the Troops prom Boston lord chatham "My Lords, these papers from America, now laid by adminis tration for the first time before your lordships, have been, to my knowledge, five or six weeks in the pocket of the minister. And, notwithstanding the fate of this kingdom hangs upon the event of this great controversy, we are but this moment called to a consideration of this important subject. "My Lords, I do not wish to look into one of these papers. I know their contents well enough already. I know that there is not a member in this house but is acquainted with their purport, also. There ought, therefore, to be no delay in entering upon this matter. We ought to proceed to it immediately. We ought to seize the first moment to open the door of reconciliation. The Americans will never be in a temper or state to be reconciled — they ought not to be — till the troops are withdrawn. The troops are a perpetual irritation to those people; they are a bar to all confidence and all cordial reconcilement. "The way must be immediately opened for reconciliation. It wiU soon be too late. I know not who advised the present measures; I know not who advises to a perseverance and en forcement of them; but this I will say, that whoever advises them ought to answer for it at his utmost peril. I know that no one will avow that he advised or that he was the author of these measures; every one shrinks from the charge. But some body has advised His Majesty to these measures, and, if he con tinues to hear such evil counselors, His Majesty will be undone. His Majesty may indeed wear his crown, but, the American jewel out of it, it will not be worth the wearing. What more shall I say? I must not say the king is betrayed; but this I will say, the nation is ruined. What foundation have we for our claims over America ? What is our right to persist in such cruel and vindictive measures against that loyal, respectable people ? ' ' They say, you have no right to tax them without their con sent. They say truly. Representation and taxation must go to gether ; they are inseparable. Yet there is scarcely a man in our streets, though so poor as scarcely to be able to get his daily bread, but thinks he is the legislator of America. ' Our American 102 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES subjects' is a common phrase in the mouths of the lowest orders of our citizens; but property, my lords, is the sole and entire dominion of the owner: it excludes all the world besides the owner. None can intermeddle with it. It is an unity, a mathe matical point. It is an atom; untangible by any but the pro prietor. Touch it, and the owner loses his whole property. The touch contaminates the whole mass, the whole property vanishes. The touch of another annihilates it; for whatever is a man's own is absolutely and exclusively his own After stating that the Americans had been abused, misrepresented and traduced in the most atrocious manner in order to give color to and urge on the most precipitate, unjust, cruel, and vindictive measures that ever disgraced a nation, he asks: "But how have this respectable people behaved under their grievances? With unexampled patience, with unparalleled wis dom. They chose delegates by their free suffrages ; no bribery, no corruption, no influence there, my Lords. Their representa tives meet with the sentiments and temper and speak the sense of the continent. For genuine sagacity, for singular moderation, for solid wisdom, manly spirit, sublime sentiments, and simplic ity of language, for everything respectable and honorable, the Congress of Philadelphia shine unrivaled. This wise people speak out. They do not hold the language of slaves; they tell you what they mean. They do not ask you to repeal your laws as a favor; they claim it as a right — they demand it. They tell you they will not submit to them ; and I tell you, the acts must be repealed; they will be repealed; you cannot enforce them. The ministry are checkmated ; they have a move to make on the board; yet not a move but they are ruined. Repeal, therefore, my Lords, I say. But bare repeal will not satisfy this enlight ened and spirited people. What! repeal a bit of paper! repeal a piece of parchment ! That alone will not do, my lords. You must go through the work — ^you must declare you have no right to tax — ^then they may trust you; then they will have some confidence in you." After adverting to the distinction he had formerly made, in the debate on the repeal of the Stamp Act, between taxation and legislation (see page 41) Lord Chatham thus concludes : FORCE OR CONCILIATION? 103 ' ' My Lords, deeply impressed with the importance of taking some healing measures at this most alarming, distracted state of our affairs, though bowed down with a cruel disease, I have crawled to this House to give you my best counsel and experience ; and my advice is to beseech His Majesty to withdraw his troops. This is the best I can think of. It will convince America that you mean to try her cause in the spirit and by the laws of free dom and fair enquiry, and not by codes of blood. How can she now trust you with the bayonet at her breast? She has all the reason in the world now to believe you mean her death or bon dage. Thus entered on the threshold of this business, I will knock at your gates for justice without ceasing, unless inveterate infirmities stay my hand. My Lords, I pledge myself never to leave this business. I will pursue it to the end in every shape. I will never fail of my attendance on it, at every step and period of this great matter, unless nailed down to my bed by the sever ity of disease. My Lords, there is no time to be lost ; every mo ment is big with dangers. Nay, while I am now speaking the decisive blow may be struck and millions involved in the con sequences. The very first drop of blood will make a wound that will not easily be skinned over. Years, perhaps ages, may not heal it. It will be immedicabile vulnus: a wound of that rancor ous, malignant, corroding, festering nature which in all prob ability will mortify the whole body. Let us then, my Lords, set to this business in earnest ! Not take it up by bits and scraps as formerly, just as exigencies pressed, without any regard to general relations, connections, and dependencies. I would not, by anj^hing I have said, my lords, be thought to encourage America to proceed beyond the right line. I reprobate all acts of violence by her mobility.^ But when her inherent constitu tional rights are invaded, those rights she has an equitable claim to enjoy by the fundamental laws of the English constitution, and which are engrafted thereon by the unalterable laws of nature; then I own myself an American, and, feeling myself such, shall, to the verge of my life, vindicate those rights against all men who strive to trample upon or oppose them." The motion of Lord Chatham, though supported by Lord Camden, Lord Shelburne, and the Marquis of Rockingham, was rejected by a large majority. The ministers, being now prepared to announce their de termination to coerce obedience to the late acts of Par- V. «., the common people; a word humorously coined from "mob" as an antonym for "nobility." 104 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES liament, refused to listen to the prophetic voice of this experienced statesman. This, however, did not prevent him from presenting to the House soon after a bill con taining his favorite plan "for settling the troubles, and for asserting the supreme legislative authority and superintending power of Great Britain over the colonies. ' ' Chatham's Plan op Conciliation The great outlines of this plan were in the first place a general declaration that the colonies of America were dependent on the imperial Crown of Great Britain and subordinate to the British Parliament, and that Parlia ment could make laws binding on them in all cases touching the general weal of the British empire; the bill then enacted that Parliament could lay no tax or tallage without common consent by an act of an Ameri can provincial assembly duly convened for that purpose. It provided that a general congress be held in America to recognize such general superintending authority in Parliament; and that such congress be requested to take into consideration the making a free grant to the King, and his successors, of a certain permanent revenue, subject to the disposition of Parlia ment, to the alleviation of the national debt. That the same congress apportion the quotas of this revenue to each province. That the vice- admiralty courts be reduced to their ancient limits — that no person be sent to Great Britain for crimes committed in America — that the acts complained of, passed since 1763, be suspended — that the judges hold their offices during good be havior, and have their salaries from the Crown; and the bill also declared that the colonies were justly entitled to the priv ileges and franchises granted by their charters or constitutions, and that these charters could not be invaded or rescinded, unless for some legal ground of forfeiture. It asserted the right of the King to send a legal army to any part of his dominions; but that no military force could lawfully be used to destroy the just rights of the people. Though this bill, as it contained a direct avowal of the supreme authority of Parliament over the colonies in all cases except that of taxation, could never have received the assent of the Americans, yet, as it ex- Frontzspiece in the London Magazine. CONCILIATION Beitain, Ambeica, at length be Friends, Accept the terms which Concobd recommends! Be ye but Steady to each other's Cause, Protect, defend, and not infringe the Laws; Ye may together — come the World in Arms, Bear the brunt Shock of hostile, dire alarms. 'Tis Peace, Trade, Navigation, will support The poor with bread — in Dignity the Court. Eush to each other's Arms, be iSrm and true; One Faith, one Fame, one Intrest, makes the Two. 105 106 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES pressly denied the parliamentary power of taxing the colonies without the consent of their assemblies, and made other concessions, it was rejected by a large majority on its first reading. Lord Chatham had shown this bill to Dr. Benjamin Franklin before he submitted it to the House of Lords, but the latter had not an opportunity of proposing certain alterations which he had sketched. Dr. Franklin, however, at the special request of Lord Chatham, was present at the debates upon it. Lord Dartmouth was at first disposed to have the bill lie upon the table, but Lord Sandwich opposed its being received and moved that it be immediately "re jected with the contempt it deserved. He could never believe," he said, "that it was the production of a British peer; that it appeared to him rather the work of some American." Turning his face toward Dr. Franklin, then standing at the bar, "he fancied," he said, ' ' he had in his eye the person who drew it up, one of the bitterest and most mischievous enemies this country had ever known." To this part of the speech of Lord Sandwich Chatham replied by saying "that it was entirely his own. ' ' "This declaration," he said, "he thought himself the more obliged to make, as many of their lordships appeared to have so mean an opinion of it ; for if it was so weak or so bad a thing, it was proper in him to take care that no other person should unjustly share in the censure it deserved. That it had been heretofore reckoned his vice not to be apt to take advice; but he made no scruple to declare that, if he were the first minister of this country, and had the care of settling this momentous business, he should not be ashamed of publicly calling to his as sistance a person so perfectly acquainted with the whole of American affairs as the gentleman alluded to and so injuriously reflected on; one whom all Europe held in estimation for his knowledge and wisdom, and who ranked with our Boyles and Newtons ; who was an honor, not to the English nation only, but to human nature." FORCE OR CONCILIATION.? 107 Petitions in Favor op America Shelved Soon after the meeting of Parliament in January petitions from the merchants of London and other trad ing towns in favor of America were presented to the House of Commons. These petitions, instead of being referred, as the petitioners expected, to the committee on American affairs, Avere, on motion of the minister, referred to another committee whose meeting was fixed at a more distant day. This was considered by the petitioners as very unfair treatment, and the committee to which their petitions were referred was called the "committee of oblivion." The petition of the American congress to the King had been sent to the house with other papers, but had been left entirely unnoticed. Dr. Franklin, Mr. Bollan, and Arthur Lee, colonial agents, to whom it had been entrusted, requested liberty to be heard upon it before the house. This, however, was refused, the ministers giving the old reason that it came from an illegal assembly. Thus the humble supplication of three millions of people could not be heard unless presented in a particular manner. Acts to "Crush Rebellion" Immediately after the rejection of Lord Chatham's bill the minister proposed in the House of Commons a joint address to the King on American affairs. In this address, which was carried by large majorities. Parliament declared that Massachusetts was in a state of rebellion, and that this colony had been supported by unlawful combinations and engagements entered into by several of the other colonies to the great injury and oppression of His Majesty's subjects in Great Britain. Assuring His Majesty of their determination never to relinquish the sovereign authority of the King and Par liament over the colonies, they requested him to take the most effectual measures to enforce obedience to that authority, and promised him their support at the hazard of their lives and property. In the long and pointed debates on this address it was declared by 7 108 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES ministers and their supporters that the Americans had long wished to become independent, and only waited for ability and opportunity to accomplish their design. To prevent this, they said, and to crush the monster in its birth, was the duty of every Englishman, and this must be done at any price and at every hazard. In the course of the debates the Americans were branded with the epithets of cowards and paltroons, and some pretending to be well acquainted with their character declared them incapable of military discipline or exer tion, and that a small force would reduce them to obedience. Opposition to the address was made in both Houses, -'y but in vain. The King in his answer assured Parlia ment of his firm determination in compliance with their request to enforce obedience to the laws and authority of the supreme legislature of the empire. His answer was followed by a message requesting an increase of his forces by sea and land. The restriction of the trade of the colonies and a prohibition of their use of the fisheries were also a part of the ministerial system of measures. The minister began this part of his system with Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island as being the most obstinate and refractory. On the 10th of February he presented a bill which soon became a law restricting the trade of these colonies to Great Britain, Ireland, and the British West Indies, and prohibiting their carrying on any fisheries on the banks of Newfoundland and other places for a limited time. The same restrictions were soon after extended to all the colonies represented in the Congress at Philadelphia, with the exception of New York and North Carolina. These bills were opposed by the minority in both houses as unjust and cruel toward the colonists, involving the innocent with the guilty; and unwise and impolitic in regard to the people of Great Britain. By the loss of their foreign trade and the fisheries the colonists, it was said, particularly those of New England, would be unable to pay the large balances due from them to the British merchants. But every argument, however just or reasonable, was urged in vain against the measures FORCE OR CONCILIATION.? 109 proposed by the minister. An idea prevailed in Great Britain that the people of New England were dependent on the fisheries for subsistence, and that, deprived of these, they would be starved into obedience and sub mission. Franklin's Proposal for Reconciliation During this period Dr. Fothergill and Mr. Barclay, both friends to America, had frequent conversations with Dr. Franklin, earnestly soliciting him to suggest some plan of reconciliation which might be submitted to the consideration of the Ministry. They urged that this might be done immediately before the breach was irreparable, as additional measures against the people of New England were at that time in contemplation. About the first of December Dr. Franklin sketched and presented to them a plan which he called "Hints for conversation upon the subject of terms that might probably produce a durable union between Great Britain and the colonies. ' ' The "hints" included, among other propositions, that the tea duty act and all acts restraining manu factures in the colonies be repealed, the royal garrisons be removed, and the recent act in regard to Massa chusetts and Quebec be revoked. In return, the Naviga tion Acts to be all reenacted in the colonies. To some of Franklin's propositions Mr. Barclay and Dr. Fothergill made strong objections. Restraining manufactures in the colonies, they said, was a favorite idea in Great Britain, and would not easily be relinquished. Dr. Franklin, however, insisted on the justice of allowing all subjects in every country to make the most of their natural advantages, but at their earnest request he consented to change the word repealed to reconsidered. With respect to sending or quartering troops in the colonies, this, they observed, would never be granted, as all would be of opinion that the King, who was to defend all parts of his dominions, had a right of course to place his troops where they might best answer that purpose. Dr. Franklin in support of his proposition 110 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES said that if the King could bring troops into the colonies without the consent of the colonial legislatures, he might also bring armies raised in America into England with out consent of Parliament. If troops were necessary in America the consent of the local assemblies would no doubt always be obtained, and he refused to give up this article. Strong objections, they said, would be made against repealing the late laws relating to Quebec and Massa chusetts, the old colonists having nothing to do with Quebec, and the act altering the charter of Massachu setts being deemed by the Administration a valuable improvement in the government of that province. Dr. Franklin replied that the Americans had, at a great expense, assisted in the conquest of Canada, and there fore had a right to object to the establishment of an arbitrary government there. "That as to amending the Massachusetts government," he told them, "though it might be shown that every one of these pretended amendments were real mischiefs, yet that charters being compacts between two parties, the King and the people, no alteration could be made in them, even for the better, but by the consent of both parties. That the Parliament's claim and exercise of a power to alter our charters, which had always been deemed inviolable but for forfeiture, and to alter laws made in pursuance of those charters which had received the royal approbation, and thenceforth were deemed fixed and un changeable but by the powers that made them, had rendered all our constitutions uncertain, and set us quite afloat; that, as by claiming a right to tax us ad libitum, they deprived us of all property ; so by this claim of altering our laws and charters at will they deprived us of all privilege and right whatever, but what we should hold at their pleasure ; that this was a situa tion we could not be in, and must risk life and everything rather than submit to it. ' ' The monopoly of the colonial commerce, it was said, could never be given up, and that any proposition of this kind would only give offence without producing any good. This article was therefore, at last, totally omitted. The propositions were placed before the Ministry FORCE OR CONCILIATION? HI and other gentlemen of influence in Parliament, and on the 4th of February, 1775, Dr. Fothergill and Mr. Barclay had an interview with Dr. Franklin on the sub ject. Mr. Barclay said there was a good disposition in the Administration toward the colonies, and hinted how much it was in the power of Dr. Franklin himself to promote an agreement, and that in such an event he might expect not only a restoration of his old place, but almost any other he might wish. To this Dr. Franklin replied that the Ministry, he was sure, would rather give him a place in a cart to Tyburn than any other place whatever. The ministerial agents made counter propositions, to which Dr. Franklin replied that, as none of the late acts relating to the province of Massachusetts Bay were to be repealed, except the Boston Port Bill, "Massa chusetts must suffer all the hazards and mischiefs of war rather than admit the alteration of their charters and laws by Parliament. They who can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ' ' Lord North's Proposition Soon after the close of this negotiation and while Parliament were engaged in augmenting the military and naval force and declaring the colonists in a state of rebellion. Lord North, the Prime Minister, surprised both his political friends and enemies with a proposi tion called his conciliatory plan in relation to the colonies. This proposition was submitted to the House of Commons by the minister on the 20th of February, 1775, and was finally adopted. It declared: "That, when the Governor, Council and Assembly, or Gen eral Court of any of His Majesty's colonies in America shall propose to make provision, according to the condition, circum stances, and situation of such province or colony, for contrib uting their proportion for the common defence (such proportion to be raised under the authority of the General Court or As sembly of such colony and disposable by Parliament), and shall 112 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES engage to make provision, also, for the support of the civil government and the administration of justice in such colony, it will be proper, if such proposal shall be approved by Eis Majesty and the two Houses of Parliament, and for so long as such provision shall be made accordingly, to forbear in respect to such colony to levy any duty, tax or assessment, except only such duties as it may be expedient to levy or impose for the regulation of commerce; the net proceeds of the duties last mentioned to be carried to the account of such colony respec tively." This unexpected proposition was at first opposed by those who usually acted with the minister as totally inconsistent with the course of measures just adopted, and they would probably have voted against it had they not been quieted by explanations made by his partic ular friends as to its real object, which was to cause a division among the colonies; or, if this should not be the effect, and the reasonable terms offered should be rejected by them, to unite the people of England in strong coercive measures. The minister stated that it would be an infallible touch-stone to try the sincerity of the Americans. That he intended by it to separate the grain from the chaff. If rejected, "we shall then," he observed, "know how to act; after having showu our wisdom and our humanity by giving them an op portunity of redeeming their past faults, and holding out to them fitting terms of accommodation; if they reject them we shall stand justified in taking the most coercive measures, and they must be answerable to God and man for the consequences." The adoption of Lord North's conciliatory scheme did not prevent David Hartley and Edmund Burke from presenting to the House their respective plans of reconciliation. Hartley's and Burke's Propositions Mr. Hartley proposed that at the request of Parlia ment the secretary of state should require a contribution from the colonies for the general expense of the empire. FORCE OR CONCILIATION.? 113 leaving the amount and application to the colonial assemblies. Mr. Burke's proposition, founded on expediency, was to permit the colonies to tax themselves in their assem blies according to ancient usage and to repeal all acts of Parliament imposing duties in America. These propositions, though supported by all the eloquence and powerful talents of Mr. Burke, were re jected by the usual ministerial majorities. In presenting his proposition, Mr. Burke made what has been considered the greatest of all his speeches, and one to which there are few equals in forensic oratory, whether of ancient or of modern times. On Conciliation with America EDMUND burke Mr. Speaker : As I came into the House full of anxiety about the event of my motion, I found, to my infinite surprise, that the grand penal bill,^ by which we had passed sentence on the trade and sustenance of America, is to be returned to us from the other House. I do confess I could not help looking on this event as a fortunate omen. I look upon it as a sort of provi dential favor by which we are put once more in possession of our deliberative capacity upon a business so very questionable in its nature, so very uncertain in its issue. By the return of this bill, which seemed to have taken its fiight forever, we are at this very instant nearly as free to choose a plan for our American government as we were on the first day of the ses sion. If, sir, we incline to the side of conciliation we are not at all embarrassed (unless we please to make ourselves so) by any incongruous mixture of coercion and restraint. We are, therefore, called upon, as it were by a superior warning voice, again to attend to America ; to attend to the whole of it together ; and to review the subject with an unusual degree of care and calmness. Here the speaker told of the exhaustive research he had made in American affairs since the proposition of the Stamp Act. * The act to confine the commerce of New England to Great Britain, Ireland and the British West Indies. 114 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES Sir, Parliament, having an enlarged view of objects, made during this interval more frequent changes in their sentiment and their conduct than could be justified in a particular person upon the contracted scale of private information. But, though I do not hazard anything approaching to a censure on the mo tives of former Parliaments to all those alterations, one fact is undoubted — that under them the state of America has been kept in continual agitation. Everything administered as remedy to the public complaint, if it did not produce, was at least followed by a heightening of the distemper ; until, by a variety of experi ments, that important country has been brought into her pres ent situation — a situation which I will not miscall, which I dare not name, which I scarcely know how to comprehend in the terms of any description. To restore order and repose to an empire so great and so distracted as ours is merely in the attempt an undertaking that would ennoble the flights of the highest genius, and obtain par don for the efforts of the meanest understanding. Struggling a good while with these thoughts, by degrees I felt myself more firm. I derived, at length, some confidence from what in other circumstances usually produces timidity. I grew less anxious, even from the idea of my own insignificance. For, judging of what you are by what you ought to be, I persuaded myself that you would not reject a reasonable proposition because it had nothing but its reason to recommend it. The proposition is peace. Not peace through the medium of war ; not peace to be hunted through the labyrinth of intri cate and endless negotiations ; not peace to arise out of universal discord, fomented from principle, in all parts of the empire; not peace to depend on the juridical determination of perplex ing questions, or the precise marking the shadowy boundaries of a complex government. It is simple peace, sought in its natural course and its ordinary haunts. It is peace sought in the spirit of peace, and laid in principles purely pacific. I propose, by removing the ground of the difference, and by re storing the former unsuspecting confidence of the colonies in the mother country,^ to give permanent satisfaction to your people ; and, far from a scheme of ruling by discord, to reconcile them to each other in the same act, and by the bond of the very same interest which reconciles them to British government. My idea is nothing more. Refined policy ever has been the parent of confusion, and ever will be so as long as the world endures. Plain good intention, which is as easily discovered 'See declaration of the Congress at Philadelphia in 1774, on page 93. FORCE OR CONCILIATION? 115 at the first view as fraud is surely detected at last, is (let me say) of no mean force in the government of mankind. Gen uine simplicity of heart is a healing and cementing principle. My plan, therefore, being formed upon the most simple grounds imaginable, may disappoint some people when they hear it. It has nothing to recommend it to the pruriency of curious ears. There is nothing at all new and captivating in it. It has noth ing of the splendor of the project which has been lately laid upon your table by the noble Lord in the blue ribbon [Lord North]. It does not propose to fill your lobby with squabbling colony agents, who will require the interposition of your mace at every instant to keep the peace among them. It does not institute a magnificent auction of finance, where captivated provinces come to general ransom by bidding against each other until you knock down the hammer, and determine a proportion of payments beyond all the powers of algebra to equalize and settle. The House has declared conciliation admissible previous to any submission on the part of America. It has even shot a good deal beyond that mark, and has admitted that the complaints of our former mode of exerting the right of taxation were not wholly unfounded. The means proposed by the noble Lord for carrying his ideas into execution I think, indeed, are very indifferently suited to the end ; and this I shall endeavor to show you before I sit down. But for the present I take my ground on the ad mitted principle. I mean to give peace. Peace implies recon ciliation; and where there has been a material dispute reconcil iation does in a manner always imply concession on the one part or on the other. In this state of things I make no difficulty in affirming that the proposal ought to originate from us. Great and acknowledged force is not impaired, either in effect or in opinion, by an unwillingness to exert itself. The superior power may offer peace with honor and with safety. Such an offer from such a power will be attributed to magnanimity. But the con cessions of the weak are the concessions of fear. When such a one is disarmed, he is wholly at the mercy of his superior, and he loses forever that time and those chances which, as they hap pen to all men, are the strength and resources of all inferior power. The capital leading questions on which you must this day decide are these two : First, whether you ought to concede; and, secondly, what your concession ought to be. On the first of these questions we have gained, as I have 116 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES just taken the liberty of observing to you, some ground. But I am sensible that a good deal more is still to be done. Indeed, sir, to enable us to determine both on the one and the other of these great questions with a firm and precise judgment, I think it may be necessary to consider distinctly: The true nature and the peculiar circumstances of the object which we have before us — because, after all our struggle, whether we will or not, we must govern America according to that nature and to those circumstances, and not according to our imagina tions; not according to abstract ideas of right; by no means according to mere general theories of government, the resort to which appears to me, in our present situation, no better than arrant trifling. I shall therefore endeavor, with your leave, to lay before you some of the most material of these circum stances in as full and as clear a manner as I am able to state them. Here the speaker discussed the population of the colonies, which he had found to be two million whites and five hundred thousand blacks, all increasing so fast that "while we spend our time in deliberating on the mode of governing two millions we shall find we have two millions more to manage." This fact, he said to the House, "will show that you ought not, in reason, to trifle with so large a mass of the interests and feelings of the human race. Tou could at no time do so without guilt, and, be assured, you will not be able to do it long with impunity." But the population of this country, the great and growing population, though a very important consideration, will lose much of its weight if not combined with other circumstances. The commerce of your colonies is out of all proportion beyond the numbers of the people. Examine this account: The whole export trade of England, including that to the col onies, in 1704 £6,509,000 Exported to the colonies alone, in 1772 6,024,000 Difference £485,000 The trade with America alone is now within less than £500,000 of being equal to what this great commercial nation, England, carried on at the beginning of this century with the whole world! FORCE OR CONCILIATION? 117 But, it will be said, is not this American trade an unnatural protuberance that has drawn the juices from the rest of the body? The reverse. It is the very food that has nourished every other part into its present magnitude. Our general trade has been greatly augmented, and augmented more or less in almost every part to which it ever extended, but with this material difference, that, of the six millions which in the begin ning of the century constituted the whole mass of our export commerce, the colony trade was but one twelfth part ; it is now (as a part of sixteen millions) considerably more than a third of the whole. This is the relative proportion of the importance of the colonies of these two periods; and all reasoning concern ing our mode of treating them must have this proportion as its basis, or it is a reasoning weak, rotten, and sophistical. I pass to the colonies in another point of view — their agri culture. This they have prosecuted with such a spirit that, be sides feeding plentifully their own growing multitude, their annual export of grain, comprehending rice, has, some years ago, exceeded a million in value. For some time past the old world has been fed from the new. The scarcity which you have felt would have been a desolating famine if this child of your old age, with a true filial piety, with a Roman charity, had not put the full breast of its youthful exuberance to the mouth of its exhausted parent.^ As to the wealth which the colonies have drawn from the sea by their fisheries, you had all that matter fully opened at your bar. Tou surely thought those acquisitions of value, for they seemed even to excite your envy; and yet the spirit by which that enterprising employment has been exercised ought rather, in my opinion, to have raised your esteem and admira tion. And pray, sir, what in the world is equal to it ? Pass by the other parts, and look at the manner in which the people of New England have of late carried on the whale fishery. While we follow them among the tumbling mountains of ice, and be hold them penetrating into the deepest frozen recesses of Hud son's Bay and Davis' Straits — while we are looking for them beneath the arctic circle, we hear that they have pierced into the opposite region of polar cold — that they are at the antipodes, and engaged under the frozen Serpent of the south. Falkland Island, which seemed too remote and romantic an object for the grasp of national ambition, is but a stage and resting-place in the progress of their victorious industry. Nor is the equinoc- ' An allusion to the story of a Eoman matron told in Valerius Maximus, V, 7, and Pliny, Nat. Hist., 7, 36. 118 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES tial heat more discouraging to them than the accumulated win ter of both the poles. We know that, while some of them draw the line, and strike the harpoon on the coast of Africa, others run the longitude, and pursue their gigantic game along the coast of Brazil. No sea but what is vexed by their fisheries. No climate that is not witness to their toils. Neither the persever ance of Holland, nor the activity of Prance, nor the dexterous and firm sagacity of English enterprise, ever carried this most perilous mode of hardy industry to the extent to which it has been pushed by this recent people — a people who are still, as it were, but in the gristle, and not yet hardened into the bone of manhood. When I contemplate these things — when I know that the colonies in general owe little or nothing to any care of ours, and that they are not squeezed into this happy form by the constraints of watchful and suspicious government, but that, through a wise and salutary neglect, a generous nature has been suffered to take her own way to perfection — when I reflect upon these effects — when I see how profitable they have been to us, I feel all the pride of power sink, and all presumption in the wisdom of human contrivances melt and die away within me. My rigor relents. I pardon something to the spirit of liberty. I am sensible, sir, that all which I have asserted in my detail is admitted in the gross; but that quite a different con clusion is drawn from it. America, gentlemen say, is a noble object. It is an object well worth fighting for. Certainly it is, if fighting a people be the best way of gaining them. Gentle men in this respect will be led to their choice of means by their complexions and their habits. Those who understand the military art will, of course, have some predilection for it. Those who wield the thunder of the state may have more confi dence in the efficacy of arms. But I confess, possibly for want of this knowledge, my opinion is much more in favor of prudent management than of force; considering force not as an odious, but a feeble, instrument for preserving a people so numerous, so active, so growing, so spirited as this in a profitable and subor dinate connection with us. First, sir, permit me to observe, that the use of force alone is but temporary. It may subdue for a moment, but it does not remove the necessity of subduing again ; and a nation is not governed which is perpetually to be conquered. My next objection is its uncertainty. Terror is not always the effect of force; and an armament is not a victory. If you do not succeed, you are without resource; for, conciliation fail- FORCE OR CONCILLA.TION? 119 ing, force remains; but, force failing, no farther hope of rec onciliation is left. Power and authority are sometimes bought by kindness, but they can never be begged as alms by an im poverished and defeated violence. A farther objection to force is, that you impair the object by your very endeavors to preserve it. The thing you fought for is not the thing which you recover; but depreciated, sunk, wasted, and consumed in the contest. Nothing less will content me than whole America. I do not choose to consume its strength along with our own, because in all parts it is the British strength that I consume. I do not choose to be caught by a foreign enemy at the end of this exhausting conflict, and still less in the midst of it. I may escape; but I can make no insurance against such an event. Let me add, that I do not choose wholly to break the American spirit, because it is the spirit that has made the country. Lastly, we have no sort of experience in favor of force as an instrument in the rule of our colonies. Their growth and their utility have been owing to methods altogether different. Our ancient indulgence has been said to be pursued to a fault. It may be so ; but we know, if feeling is evidence, that our fault was more tolerable than our attempt to mend it; and our sin far more salutary than our penitence. These, sir, are my reasons for not entertaining that high opinion of untried force by which many gentlemen, for whose sentiments in other particulars I have great respect, seem to be so greatly captivated. But there is still behind a third consideration concerning this object, which serves to determine my opinion on the sort of policy which ought to be pursued in the management of Amer ica, even more than its population and its commerce — I mean its temper and character. In this character of the Americans a love of freedom is the predominating feature, which marks and distinguishes the whole ; and, as an ardent is always a jeal ous affection, your colonies become suspicious, restive, and un- tractable, whenever they see the least attempt to wrest from them by force, or shuffie from them by chicane, what they think the only advantage worth living for. This fierce spirit of lib erty is stronger in the English colonies, probably, than in any other people of the earth, and this from a variety of powerful causes, which, to understand the true temper of their minds, and the direction which this spirit takes, it will not be amiss to lay open somewhat more largely. First, the people of the colonies are descendants of English- 120 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES men. England, sir, is a nation which still, I hope, respects, and formerly adored, her freedom. The colonists emigrated from you when this part of your character was most predominant; and they took this bias and direction the moment they parted from your hands. They are, therefore, not only devoted to liberty, but to liberty according to English ideas and on Eng lish principles. Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found. Liberty inheres in some sensible object ; and every nation has formed to itself some favorite point which, by way of eminence, becomes the criterion of their happiness. It happened you know, sir, that the great contests for freedom in this country were, from the earliest times, chiefly upon the question of taxing. Most of the contests in the ancient common wealths turned primarily on the right of election of magistrates, or on the balance among the several orders of the State. The question of money was not with them so immediate. But in England it was otherwise. On this point of taxes the ablest pens and most eloquent tongues have been exercised; the great est spirits have acted and suffered. In order to give the fullest satisfaction concerning the importance of this point, it was not only necessary for those who, in argument, defended the ex cellence of the English constitution to insist on this privilege of granting money as a dry point of fact, and to prove that the right had been acknowledged in ancient parchments and blind usages to reside in a certain body called the House of Commons. They went much farther: they attempted to prove (and they succeeded) that in theory it ought to be so, from the particular nature of a House of Commons as an immediate rep resentative of the people, whether the old records had delivered this oracle or not. They took infinite pains to inculcate as a fundamental principle that in all monarchies the people must, in effect, themselves, mediately or immediately, possess the power of granting their own money, or no shadow of liberty could subsist. The colonies draw from you, as with their life- blood, those ideas and principles. Their love of liberty, as with you, fixed and attached on this specific point of taxing. Lib erty might be safe or might be endangered in twenty other par ticulars without their being much pleased or alarmed. Here they felt its pulse, and, as they found that beat, they thought themselves sick or sound. I do not say whether they were right or wrong in applying your general arguments to their own case. It is not easy, indeed, to make a monopoly of theorems and corol laries. The fact is, that they did thus apply those general argu ments; and your mode of governing them, whether through FORCE OR CONCILIATION? 121 lenity or indolence, through wisdom or mistake, confirmed them in the imagination that they, as well as you, had an interest in these common principles. They were further confirmed in these pleasing errors by the form of their provincial legislative assemblies. Their govern ments are popular in a high degree; some are merely popular; in all, the popular representative is the most weighty; and this share of the people in their ordinary government never fails to inspire them with lofty sentiments, and with a strong aversion from whatever tends to deprive them of their chief importance. If anything were wanting to this necessary operation of the form of government, religion would have given it a complete effect. Religion, always a principle of energy, in this new people is no way worn out or impaired ; and their mode of pro fessing it is also one main cause of this free spirit. The people are Protestants ; and of that kind which is the most averse to all implicit submission of mind and opinion. This is a persua sion not only favorable to liberty, but built upon it. I do not think, sir, that the reason of this averseness in the dissenting churches from all that looks like absolute government is so much to be sought in their religious tenets as in their history. Every one knows that the Roman Catholic religion is at least coeval with most of the governments where it prevails ; that it has gen erally gone hand in hand with them; and received great favor and every kind of support from authority. The Church of England, too, was formed from her cradle under the nursing care of regular government. But the dissenting interests have sprung up in direct opposition to all the ordinary powers of the world, and could justify that opposition only on a strong claim to natural liberty. Their very existence depended on the powerful and unremitted assertion of that claim. All Prot estantism, even the most cold and passive, is a kind of dissent. But the religion most prevalent in our northern colonies is a refinement on the principle of resistance ; it is the dissidence of dissent ; and the Protestantism of the Protestant religion. This religion, under a variety of denominations, agreeing in nothing but in the communion of the spirit of liberty, is predominant in most of the northern provinces; where the Church of Eng land, notwithstanding its legal rights, is in reality no more than a sort of private sect, not composing, most probably, the tenth of the people. The colonists left England when this spirit was high, and in the emigrants was the highest of all; and even that stream of foreigners which has been constantly flowing into these colonies has, for the greatest part, been composed of 122 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES dissenters from the establishments of their several countries, and have brought with them a temper and character far from alien to that of the people with whom they mixed. Sir, I can perceive by their manner that some gentlemen ob ject to the latitude of this description, because in the southern colonies the Church of England forms a large body, and has a regular establishment. It is certainly true. There is, however, a circumstance attending these colonies, which, in my opinion, fully counterbalances this difference, and makes the spirit of liberty still more high and haughty than in those to the north ward. It is that in Virginia and the Carolinas they have a vast multitude of slaves. Where this is the case in any part of the world, those who are free are by far the most proud and jealous of their freedom. Freedom is to them not only an en joyment, but a kind of rank and privilege. Not seeing there that freedom, as in countries where it is a common blessing and as broad and general as the air, may be united with much abject toil, with great misery, with all the exterior of servitude, liberty looks among them like something that is more noble and liberal. I do not mean, sir, to commend the superior morality of this sentiment, which has at least as much pride as virtue in it; but I cannot alter the nature of man. The fact is so ; and these people of the southern colonies are much more strongly, and vsdth a higher and more stubborn spirit, attached to liberty than those to the northward. Such were all the ancient common wealths; such were our Gothic ancestors; such, in our days, were the Poles, and such will be all masters of slaves who are not slaves themselves. In such a people the haughtiness of domination combines with the spirit of freedom, fortifies it, and renders it invincible. Permit me, sir, to add another circumstance in our colonies which contributes no mean part toward the growth and effect of this intractable spirit — I mean their education. In no coun try perhaps in the world is the law so general a study. The profession itself is numerous and powerful; and in most prov inces it takes the lead. The greater number of the deputies sent to Congress were lawyers. But all who read (and most do read) endeavor to obtain some smattering in that science. I have been told by an eminent bookseller that in no branch of his business, after tracts of popular devotion, were so many books as those on the law exported to the Plantations. The colonists have now fallen into the way of printing them for their own use. I hear that they have sold nearly as many of Blackstone's Commentaries in America as in England. General FORCE OR CONCILIATION? 123 Gage marks out this disposition very particularly in a letter on your table. He states that all the people in his government are lawyers, or smatterers in law ; and that in Boston they have been enabled, by successful chicane, wholly to evade many parts of one of your capital penal constitutions.^ The smartness of debate will say that this knowledge ought to teach them more clearly the rights of legislature, their obligations to obedience, and the penalties of rebellion. All this is mighty well. But my honorable and learned friend [the Attorney-General, after ward Lord Thurlow] on the floor, who condescends to mark what I say for animadversion, will disdain that ground. He has heard, as well as I, that when great honors and great emol uments do not win over this knowledge to the service of the state, it is a formidable adversary to government. If the spirit be not tamed and broken by these happy methods, it is stub born and litigious. Abeunt studia in mores.^ This study ren ders men acute, inquisitive, dexterous, prompt in attack, ready in defence, full of resources. In other countries, the people more simple and of a less mercurial cast, judge of an ill prin ciple in government only by an actual grievance. Here they anticipate the evil, and judge of the pressure of the grievance by the badness of the principle. They augur misgovernment at a dis tance ; and snuff the approach of tyranny in every tainted breeze. The last cause of this disobedient spirit in the colonies is hardly less powerful than the rest, as it is not merely moral, but laid deep in the natural constitution of things. Three thousand miles of ocean lie between you and them. No contrivance can prevent the effect of this distance in weakening government. Seas roU and months pass between the order and the execution ; and the want of a speedy explanation of a single point is enough to defeat the whole system. You have, indeed, "winged minis ters" of vengeance, who carry your bolts in their pouches to the remotest verge of the sea.^ But there a power steps in that limits the arrogance of raging passion and furious elements, and says: "So far shalt thou go, and no farther." Who are you, that should fret and rage, and bite the chains of nature? Nothing worse happens to you than does to all nations who have extensive empire; and it happens in all the forms into which empire can be thrown. In large bodies the circulation of power must be less vigorous at the extremities. Nature has said it. "/. e., that which prohibited the calling of town meetings (see page 82). This the colonists evaded by adjourning the meetings. ' ' ' One 's habitual pursuits pass over into character. ' ' '"Winged minister of thunder." — Horace. 124 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES Here the speaker instanced the Turkish and Spanish empires as tolerant from necessity toward their distant provinces. Then, sir, from these six capital sources of descent a fierce spirit of liberty has grown up. It has grown with the growth of the people in your colonies, and increased with the increase of their wealth ; a spirit that, unhappily meeting with an exercise of power in England, which, however lawful, is not reconcilable to any ideas of liberty, much less with theirs, has kindled this flame that is ready to consume us. I do not mean to commend either the spirit in this excess, or the moral causes which produce it. Perhaps a more smooth and accommodating spirit of freedom in them would be more acceptable to us. Perhaps ideas of liberty might be desired, more reconcilable with an arbitrary and boundless authority. Perhaps we might wish the colonists to be persuaded that their liberty is more secure when held in trust for them by us, as guardians during a perpetual minority, than with any part of it in their own hands. But the question is not whether their spirit deserves praise or blame. What, in the name of God, shall we do with it? You have before you the object, such as it is, with all its glories, with all its imperfections on its head. You see the magnitude, the importance, the temper, the habits, the disorders. By all these considerations we are strongly urged to determine something concerning it. We are called upon to fix some rule and line for our future conduct which may give a little stability to our politics, and prevent the return of such unhappy deliberations as the present. Every such return will bring the matter before us in a still more intractable form. For what astonishing and incredible things have we not seen already ? What monsters have not been generated from this unnatural con tention? While every principle of authority and resistance has been pushed upon both sides, as far as it would go, there is nothing so solid and certain, either in reasoning or in practice, that it has not been shaken. Until very lately, all authority in America seemed to be nothing but an emanation from yours. Even the popular part of the colony constitution derived all its activity, and its first vital movement, from the pleasure of the Crown. We thought, sir, that the utmost which the discontented colonists could do, was to disturb authority. We never dreamed they could of themselves supply it, knowing in general what an operose business it is to establish a government absolutely new. But having, for our purposes in this contention, resolved that none but an obedient assembly should sit, the humors of the FORCE OR CONCILIATION? 125 people there, finding all passage through the legal channel stopped, with great violence broke out another way. Some prov inces have tried their experiment as we have tried ours; and theirs has succeeded. They have formed a government sufficient for the purposes, without the bustle of a revolution or the trouble some formality of an election. Evident necessity and tacit con sent have done the business in an instant. So well they have done it, that Lord Dunmore (the account is among the fragments on your table) tells you, that the new institution is infinitely better obeyed than the ancient government ever was in its most fortunate periods. Obedience is what makes government, and not the names by which it is called; not the name of gov ernor, as formerly, or committee, as at present. This new gov ernment has originated directly from the people, and was not transmitted through any of the ordinary artificial media of a positive constitution. It was not a manufacture ready formed and transmitted to them in that condition from England. The evil arising from hence is this: that, the colonists having once found the possibility of enjoying the advantages of order in the midst of a struggle for liberty, such struggles will not hencefor ward seem so terrible to the settled and sober part of mankind as they had appeared before the trial. Pursuing the same plan of punishing by the denial of the exercise of government to still greater lengths, we wholly abro gated the ancient government of Massachusetts. We were confi dent that the first feeling, if not the very prospect of anarchy, would instantly enforce a complete submission. The experiment was tried. A new, strange, unexpected face of things appeared. Anarchy is found tolerable. A vast province has now sub sisted, and subsisted in a considerable degree of health and vigor, for near a twelvemonth, without governor, without public coun cil, without judges, without executive magistrates. How long it will continue in this state, or what may arise out of this un heard-of situation, how can the wisest of us conjecture? Our late experience has taught us that many of those fundamental principles, formerly believed infallible, are either not of the importance they were imagined to be, or that we have not at all adverted to some other far more important and far more pow erful principles which entirely overrule those we had considered as omnipotent. I am much against any farther experiments which tend to put to the proof any more of these allowed opin ions which contribute so much to the public tranquillity. In effect, we suffer as much at home by this loosening of all ties, and this concussion of all established opinions, as we do abroad. 126 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES For, in order to prove that the Americans have no right to their liberties, we are every day endeavoring to subvert the maxims which preserve the whole spirit of our own. To prove that the Americans ought not to be free, we are obliged to depreciate the value of freedom itself; and we never seem to gain a paltry advantage over them in debate without attacking some of those principles, or deriding some of those feelings for which our ancestors have shed their blood. Sir, I would state that, as far as I am capable of discerning, there are but three ways of proceeding relative to this stubborn spirit which prevails in your colonies and disturbs your govern ment. These are, to change that spirit, as inconvenient, by re moving the causes ; to prosecute it as criminal ; or to comply with it as necessary. I would not be guilty of an imperfect enumera tion. I can think of but these three. Another has, indeed, been started — that of giving up the colonies; but it met so slight a reception that I do not think myself obliged to dwell a great while upon it. It is nothing but a little sally of anger, like the frowardness of peevish children, who, when they cannot get all they would have, are resolved to take nothing. The first of these plans, to change the spirit as inconvenient by removing the causes, I think is the most like a systematic proceeding. It is radical in its principle, but it is attended with great difficulties, some of them little short, as I conceive, of im possibilities. This will appear by examining into the plans which have been proposed. As the growing population of the colonies is evidently one cause of their resistance, it was last session mentioned in both Houses by men of weight, and received, not without applause, that, in order to check this evil, it would be proper for the Crown to make no farther grants of land. But if you stopped your grants what would be the conse quence? The people would occupy without grants. They have already so occupied in many places. You cannot station garri sons in every part of these deserts. If you drive the people from one place they will carry on their annual tillage, and re move with their flocks and herds to another. Many of the people in the back settlements are already little attached to particular situations. Already they have topped the Appalachian Moun tains. From thence they behold before them an immense plain, one vast, rich, level meadow — a square of five hundred miles. Over this they would wander without a possibility of restraint. They would change their manners with the habits of their life ; would soon forget a government by which they were disowned ; FORCE OR CONCILIATION? 127 would become hordes of English Tartars ; and, pouring down upon your unfortified frontiers a fierce and irresistible cavalry, become masters of your governors and your counselors, your col lectors and controllers, and of all the slaves that adhered to them. Such would, and, in no long time, must, be the effect of attempt ing to forbid as a crime, and to suppress as an evil, the command and blessing of Providence, "Increase and multiply." Such would be the happy result of an endeavor to keep as a lair of wild beasts that earth which God by an express charter has given to the children of men. Far different, and surely much wiser, has been our policy hitherto. Hitherto we have invited our people, by every kind of bounty, to fixed establishments. We have invited the husbandman to look to authority for his title. We have taught him piously to believe in the mysterious virtue of wax and parchment. We have thrown each tract of land, as it was peopled, into districts, that the ruling power should never be wholly out of sight. We have settled all we could, and we have carefully attended every settlement with government. Adhering, sir, as I do, to this policy, as well as for the rea sons I have just given, I think this new project of hedging in population to be neither prudent nor practicable. To impoverish the colonies in general, and in particular to arrest the noble course of their marine enterprises would be a more easy task. I freely confess it. We have shown a disposi tion to a system of this kind ; a disposition even to continue the restraint after the offence, looking on ourselves as rivals to our colonies, and persuaded that of course we must gain all that they shall lose. Much mischief we may certainly do. The power inadequate to all other things is often more than sufficient for this. I do not look on the direct and immediate power of the colonies to resist our violence as very formidable. In this, how ever, I may be mistaken. But when I consider that we have colonies for no purpose but to be serviceable to us, it seems to my poor understanding a little preposterous to make them un serviceable in order to keep them obedient. It is, in truth, noth ing more than the old and, as I thought, exploded problem of tyranny, which proposes to beggar its subject into submission. But remember, when you have completed your system of im poverishment, that nature still proceeds in her ordinary course ; that discontent will increase with misery; and that there are critical moments in the fortunes of all states when they who are too weak to contribute to your prosperity may be strong enough to complete your ruin. " Spoliatis arma sup er sunt. " '^ * " To the despoiled arms still remain. ' ' 128 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES The temper and character which prevail in our colonies are, I am afraid, unalterable by any human art. We cannot, I fear, falsify the pedigree of this fierce people, and persuade them that they are not sprung from a nation in whose veins the blood of freedom circulates. The language in which they would hear you tell them this tale would detect the imposition. Your speech would betray you. An Englishman is the unfittest person on earth to argue another Englishman into slavery. I think it is nearly as little in our power to change their republican religion as their free descent; or to substitute the Roman Catholic as a penalty, or the Church of England as an improvement. The mode of inquisition and dragooning is going out of fashion in the old world, and I should not confide much to their efficacy in the new. The education of the Americans is also on the same unalterable bottom with their religion. You cannot persuade them to burn their books of curious science ; to banish their lawyers from their courts of law; or to quench the lights of their assemblies by refusing to choose those persons who are best read in their privileges. It would be no less impracti cable to think of wholly annihilating the popular assemblies in which these lawyers sit. The army, by which we must govern in their place, would be far more chargeable to us; not quite so effectual ; and perhaps, in the end, full as difficult to be kept in obedience. With regard to the high aristocratic spirit of Virginia and the southern colonies, it has been proposed, I know, to reduce it, by declaring a general enfranchisement of their slaves. This project has had its advocates and panegyrists, yet I never could argue myself into an opinion of it. Slaves are often much at tached to their masters. A general wild offer of liberty would not always be accepted. History furnishes few instances of it. It is sometimes as hard to persuade slaves to be free as it is to compel freemen to be slaves; and in this auspicious scheme we should have both these pleasing tasks on our hands at once. But when we talk of enfranchisement do we not perceive that the American master may enfranchise, too, and arm servile hands in defence of freedom? A measure to which other people have had recourse more than once, and not without success, in a des perate situation of their affairs. Slaves as these unfortunate black people are, and dull as all men are from slavery, must they not a little suspect the offer of freedom from that very nation which has sold them to their present masters? — From that nation, one of whose causes of quarrel with those masters is their refusal to deal any more in FORCE OR CONCILIATION? 129 that inhuman traffic? An offer of freedom from England would come rather oddly, shipped to them in an African vessel, which is refused an entry into the ports of Virginia or Carolina, with a cargo of three hundred Angola negroes. It would be curious to see the Guinea captain attempt at the same instant to publish his proclamation of liberty and to advertise the sale of slaves. But let us suppose all these moral difficulties got over. The ocean remains. You cannot pump this dry; and as long as it continues in its present bed so long all the causes which weaken authority by distance will continue. "Ye gods! annihilate but space and time, And make two lovers happy ! ' ' was a pious and passionate prayer, but just as reasonable as many of these serious wishes of very grave and solemn poli ticians. If, then, sir, it seems almost desperate to think of any alter native course for changing the moral causes (and not quite easy to remove the natural) which produce the prejudices irrecon cilable to the late exercise of our authority, but that the spirit infallibly will continue, and, continuing, will produce such effects as now embarrass us, the second mode under consideration is to prosecute that spirit in its overt acts as criminal. At this proposition I must pause a moment. The thing seems a great deal too big for my ideas of jurisprudence. It should seem, to my way of conceiving such matters, that there is a very wide difference in reason and policy between the mode of pro ceeding on the irregular conduct of scattered individuals, or even of bands of men, who disturb order within the state, and the civil dissensions which may from time to time on great ques tions agitate the several communities which compose a great empire. It looks to me to be narrow and pedantic to apply the ordinary ideas of criminal justice to this great public contest. I do not know the method of drawing up an indictment against a whole people. I cannot insult and ridicule the feelings of mil lions of my fellow-creatures, as Sir Edward Coke insulted one excellent individual at the bar.^ I am not ripe to pass sentence on the gravest public bodies, intrusted with magistracies of great authority and dignity, and charged with the safety of their fellow-citizens, upon the very same title that I am. I really think that, for wise men, this is not judicious ; for sober 'Sir Walter Ealeigh at his trial for treason. See Howell's "State Trials." 130 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES men, not decent; for minds tinctured with humanity, not mild and merciful. Perhaps, sir, I am mistaken in my idea of an empire as dis tinguished from a single state or kingdom. But my idea of it is this : that an empire is the aggregate of many states under one common head whether this head be a monarch or a presiding republic. It does, in such constitutions, frequently happen (and nothing but the dismal, cold, dead uniformity of servitude can prevent its happening) that the subordinate parts have many local privileges and immunities. Between these privileges and the supreme common authority the line may be extremely nice. Of course disputes— often, too, very bitter disputes, and much ill blood, will arise. But, though every pri-vilege is an exemption, in the ease, from the ordinary exercise of the supreme authority, it is no denial of it. The claim of a privilege seems rather, ex vi termini.^ to imply a superior power; for to talk of the privileges of a state or of a person who has no superior is hardly any better than speaking nonsense. Now, in such unfortunate quarrels among the component parts of a great political union of com munities I can scarcely conceive anything more completely im prudent than for the head of the empire to insist that, if any pri\-ilege is pleaded against his will or his acts, his whole author ity is denied; instantly to proclaim rebellion, to beat to arms, and to put the offending pro"vinces under the ban. Will not this, sir, very soon teach the provinces to make no distinctions on their part? Will it not teach them that the government against which a claim of liberty is tantamount to high treason is a government to which submission is equivalent to slavery? It may not alwaj's be quite convenient to impress dependent communities with such an idea. We are, indeed, in all disputes with the colonies, by the necessity of things, the judge. It is true, sir ; but I confess that the character of judge in my own cause is a thing that frightens me. Instead of filling me with pride, I am exceedingly humbled by it. I cannot proceed with a stern, assured, judicial confi dence until I find myself in something more like a judicial char acter. I must have these hesitations as long as I am compelled to recollect that, in my Kttle reading upon such contests as these, the sense of mankind has at least as often decided against the superior as the subordinate power. Sir, let me add, too, that the opinion of my having some abstract right in my favor would not put me much at my ease in passing sentence, unless I could be sure that there were no rights which in their exercise under *"From the force of the end." FORCE OR CONCILIATION? 131 certain circumstances were not the most odious of all wrongs, and the most vexatious of all injustice. Sir, these considerations have great weight with me when I find things so circumstanced that I see the same party at once a civil litigant against me in point of right and a culprit before me; while I sit as criminal judge on acts of his whose moral quality is to be decided on upon the merits of that very litigation. Men are every now and then put, by the complexity of human affairs, into strange situa tions ; but justice is the same, let the judge be in what situation he will. In this situation let us seriously and coolly ponder. What is it we have got by all our menaces, which have been many and ferocious ? What advantage have we derived from the penal laws we have passed, and which, for the time, have been severe and numerous? What advances have we made toward our object by the sending of a force which, by land and sea, is no con temptible strength? Has the disorder abated? Nothing less. When I see things in this situation, after such confident hopes, bold promises, and active exertions, I cannot, for my life, avoid a suspicion that the plan itself is not correctly right. If, then, the removal of the causes of this spirit of American liberty be, for the greater part, or rather entirely, impracticable ; if the ideas of criminal process be inapplicable, or, if applicable, are in the highest degree inexpedient, what way yet remains? No way is open but the third and last — to comply with the American spirit as necessary, or, if you please, to submit to it as a necessary evil. If we adopt this mode, if we mean to conciliate and concede, let us see of what nature the concessions ought to be. To ascer tain the nature of our concession we must look at their complaint. The colonies complain that they have not the characteristic mark and seal of British freedom. They complain that they are taxed in Parliament in which they are not represented. If you mean to satisfy them at all you must satisfy them with regard to this complaint. If you mean to please any people you must give them the boon which they ask; not what you may think better for them, but of a kind totally different. Such an act may be a wise regulation, but it is no concession, whereas our present theme is the mode of giving satisfaction. Sir, I think you must perceive that I am resolved this day to have nothing at all to do with the question of the right of taxation. Some gentlemen startle, but it is true. I put it totally out of the question. It is less than nothing in my consideration. I do not, indeed, wonder, nor will you, sir, that gentlemen of 132 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES profound learning are fond of displaying it on this profound subject. But my consideration is narrow, confined, and wholly limited to the policy of the question. I do not examine whether the giving away a man's money be a power excepted and re served out of the general trust of government, and how far all mankind, in all forms of polity, are entitled to an exercise of that right by the charter of nature ; or whether, on the contrary, a right of taxation is necessarily involved in the general principle of legislation, and inseparable from the ordinary supreme power. These are deep questions, where great names militate against each other ; where reason is perplexed ; and an appeal to authori ties only thickens the confusion ; for high and reverend authori ties lift up their heads on both sides, and there is no sure footing in the middle. The point is That Serbonian bog Betwixt Damieta and Mount Cassius old. Where armies whole have sunk.' I do not intend to be overwhelmed in this bog, though in such respectable company. The question with me is, not whether you have a right to render your people miserable, but whether it is not your interest to make them happy. It is not what a lawyer tells me I may do, but what humanity, reason, and justice tell me I ought to do. Is a politic act the worse for being a generous one ? Is no concession proper but that which is made from your want of right to keep what you grant? Or does it lessen the grace or dignity of relaxing in the exercise of an odious claim, because you have your evidence-room full of titles, and your magazines stuffed with arms to enforce them? What signify all those titles and all those arms ? Of what avail are they when the reason of the thing tells me that the assertion of my title is the loss of my suit, and that I could do nothing but wound myself by the use of my own weapons ? I am not determining a point of law. I am restoring tran quillity, and the general character and situation of a people must determine what sort of government is fitted for them. That point nothing else can or ought to determine. My idea, therefore, without considering whether we yield as matter of right, or grant as matter of favor, is to admit the people of our colonies into an interest in the constitution, and, by recording that admission in the journals of Parliament, to give them as strong an assurance as the nature of the thing will 'From Milton's "Paradise Lost." The elevated style of Milton ap pealed peculiarly to Burke, who was his immediate successor in the line of supreme masters of English. FORCE OR CONCILIATION? 133 admit that we mean forever to adhere to that solemn declaration of systematic indulgence. Here the speaker showed the futility of taxation of the colonies, and answered the contention of those who wished to retain the taxes, since if these were abolished the colonists would instantly attack the Trade Laws. These gentlemen are convinced that this was the intention from the beginning, and the quarrel of the Americans with taxa tion was no more than a cloak and cover to this design. I am, sir, not a little surprised at this kind of discourse, and I am the more surprised, on account of the arguments which I constantly find in company with it, and which are often urged from the same mouths and on the same day. For instance, when we allege that it is against reason to tax a people under so many restraints in trade as the Americans, the noble lord in the blue ribbon [Lord North] shall tell you that the restraints on trade are futile and useless; of no advantage to us, and of no burden to those on whom they are imposed; that the trade of America is not secured by the acts of naviga tion, but by the natural and irresistible advantage of a commer cial preference. But when strong internal circumstances are urged against the taxes; when the scheme is dissected; when experience and the nature of things are brought to prove, and do prove, the utter impossibility of obtaining an effective revenue from the colonies; then, sir, the sleeping trade laws revive from their trance, and this useless taxation is to be kept sacred, not for its own sake, but as a counterguard and security of the laws of trade. Then, sir, you keep up revenue laws which are mischievous in order to preserve trade laws that are useless. Such is the wisdom of our plan in both its members. They are separately given up as of no value, and yet one is always to be defended for the sake of the other. But I cannot agree with the noble lord, nor with the pamphlet from whence he seems to have borrowed these ideas, concerning the inutility of the trade laws ^ ; for, with out idolizing them, I am sure they are still, in many ways, of great use to us; and in former times they have been of the greatest. One fact is clear and indisputable. The public and avowed origin of this quarrel was on taxation. This quarrel has, indeed, ' This was by Dean Tucker, an advocate of complete free trade with the colonies. 134 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES brought on new disputes on new questions, but certainly the least bitter, and the fewest of all, on the trade laws. To judge which of the two be the real radical cause of quarrel, we have to see whether the commercial dispute did, in order of time, precede the dispute on taxation. There is not a shadow of evi dence for it. Next, to enable us to judge whether at this moment a dislike to the trade laws be the real cause of quarrel, it is ab solutely necessary to put the taxes out of the question by a repeal. See how the Americans act in this position, and then you vidll be able to discern correctly what is the true object of the controversy, or whether any controversy at all will remain. Unless you consent to remove this cause of difference it is im possible, with decency, to assert that the dispute is not upon what it is avowed to be. And I would, sir, recommend to your serious consideration whether it be prudent to form a rule for punishing people, not on their own acts, but on your conjec tures. Surely it is preposterous at the very best. It is not justi fying your anger by their misconduct, but it is converting your ill will into their delinquency. But the colonies will go farther. Alas ! alas ! when will this speculating against fact and reason end ? What will quiet these panic fears which we entertain of the hostile effect of a con ciliatory conduct? Is it true that no case can exist in which it is proper for the sovereign to accede to the desires of his discon tented subjects? Is there anything peculiar in this case to make a rule for itself? Is all authority of course lost when it is not pushed to the extreme? Is it a certain maxim that the fewer causes of dissatisfaction are left by government the more the subject will be inclined to resist and rebel? Here the speaker entered into the subject of the constitutional relations of England with Ireland, "Wales, Chester and Durham. England, at the conquest of Ireland, extended to that country English laws and liberties. This benefit, I confess, was not at first extended to all Ireland. Mark the consequence. English authority and English liberty had exactly the same boundaries.^ Your standard could never be advanced an inch before your privileges. Sir John Davis ^ " I. e., they were limited by ' ' The Pale, ' ' or the district of English settlement. ^lu his work "Diseoverie of the True Causes Why Ireland Was Never Entirely Subdued until the Beginning of His Majesty's Happy Beign" FORCE OR CONCILIATION? 135 shows beyond a doubt that the refusal of a general communica tion of these rights was the true cause why Ireland was five hundred years in subduing; and, after the vain projects of a military government attempted in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, it was soon discovered that nothing could make that country English in civility and allegiance but your laws and your forms of legislature. It was not English arms, but the English con stitution, that conquered Ireland. From that time Ireland has ever had a general Parliament, as she had before a partial Par liament. This has made Ireland the great and flourishing king dom that it is; and, from a disgrace and a burden intolerable to this nation, has rendered her a principal part of our strength and ornament. This country cannot be said to have ever for mally taxed her. Your Irish pensioners would starve if they had no other fund to live on than taxes granted by English author ity. Turn your eyes to those popular grants from whence all your great supplies are come, and learn to respect that only source of public wealth in the British empire. My next example is Wales. This country was said to be reduced by Henry the Third. It was said more truly to be so by Edward the First. Parliament attempted to subdue the fierce spirit of the Welsh by all sorts of rigorous laws. They prohibited by statute the sending all sorts of arms into Wales, as you prohibit by procla mation (with something more of doubt on the legality) the sending arms to America. They disarmed the Welsh by statute, as you attempted (but still with more question on the legality) to disarm New England by an instruction. They made an act to drag offenders from Wales into England for trial, as you have done (but with more hardship) with regard to America. By another act, where one of the parties was an Englishman, they ordained that his trial should be always by English. They made acts to restrain trade, as you do ; and they prevented the Welsh from the use of fairs and markets, as you do the Ameri cans from fisheries and foreign ports. Here we rub our hands— a fine body of precedents for the authority of Parliament and the use of it— I admit it fully ; and pray add likewise to these precedents that all the while Wales rid this kingdom like an incubus; that it was an unprofitable and oppressive burden; and that an Englishman traveling in that country could not go six yards from the highroad without being murdered. The march of the human mind is slow. Sir, it was not until after two hundred years discovered that, by an eternal law, 136 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES Providence had decreed vexation to violence, and poverty to rapine. Your ancestors did, however, at length open their eyes to the ill husbandry of injustice. They found that the tyranny of a free people could of all tyrannies the least be endured, and that laws made against a whole nation were not the most effectual methods for securing its obedience. Accordingly, in the twenty- seventh year of Henry VIII, the course was entirely altered. With a preamble stating the entire and perfect rights of the Crown of England, it gave to the Welsh all the rights and priv ileges of English subjects. A political order was established; the military power gave way to the civil; the marches were turned into counties. But that a nation should have a right to English liberties, and yet no share at all in the fundamental security of these liberties, the grant of their own property, seemed a thing so incongruous that eight years after, that is, in the thirty-fifth of that reign, a complete and not ill-proportioned representation by counties and boroughs was bestowed upon Wales by act of Parliament. Prom that moment, as by a charm, the tumults subsided ; obedience was restored ; peace, order, and civilization followed in the train of liberty. When the day-star of the English constitution had arisen in their hearts all was harmony within and without.^ The speaker followed with the cases of Chester and Durham (which at one time were counties palatine, or possessed of royal privileges), and deduced from them the same point. Now, if the doctrines of policy contained in these preambles, and the force of these examples in the acts of Parliament, avail anything, what can be said against applying them with regard to America? Are not the people of America as much English men as the Welsh? The preamble of the act of Henry VIII says, the Welsh speak a language no way resembling that of His Majesty 's English subjects. Is America in rebellion ? Wales was hardly ever free from it. Have you attempted to govern America by penal statutes? You made fifteen for Wales. But your legislative authority is perfect with regard to America. Was it less perfect in Wales, Chester, and Durham? But America is virtually represented. What ! does the electric force of virtual representation more easily pass over the Atlantic than pervade Wales, which lies in your neighborhood ; or than Ches- ^ This is a reference to Castor and Pollux. ' ' As soon as their white star shines forth for sailors, the dashing tide flows away from the rocks the winds subside, the clouds flee, and the threatening surge (because they have so willed it) reclines upon the deep." — Horace, book i, ode xii. FORCE OR CONCILIATION? 137 ter and Durham, surrounded by abundance of representation that is actual and palpable? But, sir, your ancestors thought this sort of virtual representation, however ample, to be totally insuflicient for the freedom of the inhabitants of territories that are so near, and comparatively so inconsiderable. How, then, can I think it sufficient for those which are infinitely greater and infinitely more remote ? You will now, sir, perhaps imagine that I am on the point of proposing to you a scheme for representation of the colonies in Parliament. Perhaps I might be inclined to entertain some duch thought, but a great fiood stops me in my course. Opposuit natura.^ I cannot remove the eternal barriers of the creation. The thing in that mode I do not know to be possible. As I meddle with no theory, I do not absolutely assert the impracti cability of such a representation ; but I do not see my way to it ; and those who have been more confident have not been more successful. However, the arm of public benevolence is not short ened, and there are often several means to the same end. What nature has disjoined in one way wisdom may unite in another. When we cannot give the benefit as we would wish let us not refuse it altogether. If we cannot give the principal let us fiud a substitute. But how ? Where ? What substitute ? Fortunately I am not obliged for the ways and means of this substitute to tax my own unproductive invention. I am not even obliged to go to the rich treasury of the fertile framers of imaginary commonwealths ; not to the Republic of Plato, not to the Utopia of More, not to the Oceana of Harrington. It is be fore me. It is at my feet. And the dull swain Treads daily on it with his clouted shoon." I only wish you to recognize, for the theory, the ancient consti tutional policy of this kingdom with regard to representation as that policy has been declared in acts of Parliament; and, as to the practice, to return to that mode which a uniform experi ence has marked out to you as best, and in which you walked with security, advantage, and honor, until the year 1763. My resolutions, therefore, mean to establish the equity and justice of a taxation of America, by grant and not by imposition. To mark the legal competency of the colony assemblies for the support of their government in peace, and for public aids in time of war. To acknowledge that this legal competency has had a dutiful and beneficial exercise; and that experience has shown ' ' ' Nature has opposed. ' ' 'Prom Milton's "Comus," slightly misquoted. 138 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES the benefit of their grants, and the futility of parliamentary taxation as a method of supply. These solid truths compose six fundamental propositions. There are three more resolutions corollary to these. If you admit the first set, you can hardly reject the others. But if you admit the first, I shall be far from solicitous whether you accept or refuse the last. I think these six massive pillars will be of strength sufficient to support the temple of British concord. I have no more doubt than I entertain of my existence that, if you admitted these, you would command an immediate peace; and, with but tolerable future management, a lasting obedience in America. I am not arrogant in this confident assurance. The propositions are all mere matters of fact; and if they are such facts as draw irresistible conclusions even in the stating, this is the power of truth, and not any management of mine. Here the speaker presented his propositions, which were to the effect: 1. That the colonies were not represented in Par liament ; 2. That they were nevertheless taxed to the preju dice of their interests ; [This is inferentially admitted in Lord North's proposition.] 3. That from distance and other circumstances no plan has been devised for such representation; 4. That each of the colonies had a popular legisla ture with taxing power; 5. That these legislatures have responded to re quests from the British Government for grants to the King's service, and the right to do so has been acknowl edged by Parliament; [Also, they have contributed voluntarily and to satiety men and money to the defence of the empire in the French and Indian wars, as acknowledged by Par liament.] 6. That grants of such a nature are more agreeable to the colonies than taxes. The conclusion is irresistible. You cannot say that you were driven by any necessity to an exercise of the utmost rights of legislature. You cannot assert that you took on yourselves the FORCE OR CONCILIATION? 139 task of imposing colony taxes from the want of another legal body that is competent to the purpose of supplying the exigencies of the state without wounding the prejudices of the people. Neither is it true that the body so qualified, and having that competence, had neglected the duty. The question now on all this accumulated matter is — whether you will choose to abide by a profitable experience, or a mis chievous theory ; whether you choose to build on imagination or fact; whether you prefer enjoyment or hope; satisfaction in your subjects or discontent? Therefore, proposed Burke, (1) all taxes and re pressive acts growing out of the same, such as the Boston Port Bill, are repealed, and the Act for the Trial of Treason committed out of the King's dominions [35th year of Henry VIII] is amended, to confine it to its proper bounds and original intentions, i. e., expressly for trial of treasons in places where the jurisdiction of the Crown does not extend; 2. Judges, paid by the colonial legislatures, shall hold ofiice during good behavior, and not be removed except on complaint of the legislatures and colonial of ficers ; 3. Courts of Admiralty shall be made more com modious for suitors and sued, and the judges put on decent salaries. These courts I do not wish to take away. They are in themselves proper establishments. This court is one of the capital securities of the Act of Navigation. But courts incom modiously situated in effect deny justice ; and a court partaking in the fruits of its own condemnation is a robber. The Congress complain, and complain justly, of this grievance. These are the three consequential propositions. I have thought of two or three more, but they come rather too near detail, and to the province of executive government, which I wish Parliament always to superintend, never to assume. If the first six are granted congruity will carry the latter three. If not, the things that remain unrepealed will be, I hope, rather unseemly encumbrances on the building than very materially detrimental to its strength and stability. I do not know that the colonies have, in any general way or in any cool hour, gone much beyond the demand of immunity 140 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES in relation to taxes. It is not fair to judge of the temper or dispositions of any man, or any set of men, when they are com posed and at rest, from their conduct or their expressions in a state of disturbance and irritation. It is, besides, a very great mistake to imagine that mankind follow up practically any specu lative principle, either of government or freedom, as far as it will go in argument and logical illation. We Englishmen stop very short of the principles upon which we support any given part of our constitution, or even the whole of it together. This is nothing but what is natural and proper. All government, indeed every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue and every prudent act, is founded on compromise and barter. We balance inconveniences ; we give and take ; we remit some rights that we may enjoy others; and we choose rather to be happy citizens than subtle disputants. As we must give away some natural liberty to enjoy civil advantages, so we must sacrifice some civil liberties for the advantages to be derived from the communion and fellowship of a great empire. But in all fair dealings the thing bought must bear some proportion to the purchase paid. None will barter away "the immediate jewel of his soul. ' ' ^ Though a great house is apt to make slaves haughty, yet it is purchasing a part of the artificial importance of a great empire too dear to pay for it all essential rights and all the intrinsic dignity of human nature. None of us who would not risk his life rather than fall under a government purely arbi trary. But, although there are some among us who think our constitution wants many improvements to make it a complete system of liberty, perhaps none who are of that opinion would think it right to aim at such improvement by disturbing his country and risking every thing that is dear to him. In every arduous enterprise we consider what we are to lose as well as what we are to gain; and the more and better stake of liberty every people possess, the less they will hazard in a vain attempt to make it more. These are the cords of maai.^ Man acts from adequate motive relative to his interest, and not on metaphysical speculations. Aristotle, the great master of reasoning, cautions us, and with great weight and propriety, against this species of delusive geometrical accuracy in moral arguments as the most fallacious of all sophistry.^ The Americans will have no interest contrary to the grandeur and glory of England when they are not oppressed by the weight "Prom Shakespeare's "OtheUo." 'Hosea, xi, 4. • Politics. FORCE OR CONCILIATION? 141 of it; and they will rather be inclined to respect the acts of a superintending legislature when they see them the acts of that power which is itself the security, not the rival, of their secon- darj- importance. In this assurance my mind most perfectly acquiesces, and I confess I feel not the least alarm from the discontents which are to arise from putting people at their ease ; nor do I apprehend the destruction of this empire from giving, by an act of free grace and indulgence, to two millions of my fellow-citizens some share of those rights upon which I have always been taught to value myself. It is said, indeed, that this power of granting, vested in American assemblies, would dissolve the unity of the empire, which was preserved entire, although Wales, and Chester, and Durham were added to it. Truly, Mr. Speaker, I do not know what this unity means, nor has it ever been heard of, that I know, in the constitutional policy of this country. The very idea of subordination of parts excludes this notion of simple and undivided unity. England is the head, but she is not the head and the members, too. Ireland has ever had from the beginning a separate, but not an independent, legislature, which, far from distracting, promoted the union of the whole. Everj^thing was sweet 1 J' and harmoniously disposed through both islands for the conservation of English dominion and the communication of English liberties. I do not see that the same principles might not be carried into twenty islands, and with the same good effect. This is my model with regard to America, as far as the internal circumstances of the two countries are the same. I know no other unity of this empire than I can draw from its example during these periods, when it seemed to my poor under standing more united than it is now, or than it is likely to be by the present methods. I promised, before I finished, to say something of the proposi tion of the noble lord [Lord North]. First, then, I cannot admit that proposition of a ransom by auction, because it is a mere project. It is a thing new; un heard of; supported by no experience; justified by no analogy; without example of our ancestors, or root in the constitution. It is neither regular parliamentary taxation nor colony grant. "Experimenium in corpore vili" ^ is a good rule, which will ever make me adverse to any trial of experiments on what is certainly the most valuable of aU subjects, the peace of this empire. Secondly, it is an experiment which must be fatal, in the end, to our constitution. For what is it but a scheme for taxing the '"Experiment upon a worthless body." 142 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES colonies in the ante-chamber of the noble lord and his succes sors? To settle the quotas and proportions in this House is clearly impossible. You, sir, may flatter yourself you shall sit a state auctioneer with your hammer in your hand, and knock down to each colony as it bids. But to settle (on the plan laid down by the noble lord) the true proportional payment for four or five-and-twenty governments according to the absolute and the relative wealth of each, and according to the British propor tion of wealth and burden, is a wild and chimerical notion. This new taxation must therefore come in by the back door of the constitution. Each quota must be brought to this House ready formed; you can neither add nor alter. You must register it. You can do nothing farther. For on what grounds can you de liberate, either before or after the proposition ? You cannot hear the counsel for all these provinces, quarreling each on its own quantity of payment, and its proportion to others. If you should attempt it the committee of provincial ways and means, or by whatever other name it will delight to be called, must swallow up all the time of Parliament. Thirdly, it does not give satisfaction to the complaint of the colonies. They complain that they are taxed without their con sent; you answer that you will fix the sum at which they shall be taxed. That is, you give them the very grievance for the remedy. You tell them indeed, that you will leave the mode to themselves. I really beg pardon. It gives me pain to mention it ; but you must be sensible that you will not perform this part of the contract. For, suppose the colonies were to lay the duties which furnished their contingent upon the importation of your manufactures, you know you would never suffer such a tax to be laid. You know, too, that you would not suffer many other modes of taxation ; so that, when you come to explain yourself, it will be found that you will neither leave to themselves the quantum nor the mode, nor, indeed, any thing. The whole is delusion from one end to the other. Fourthly, this method of ransom by auction, unless it be universally accepted, will plunge you into great and inextricable difficulties. In what year of our Lord are the proportions of payments to be settled, to say nothing of the impossibility that colony agents should have general powers of taxing the colonies at their discretion ? Consider, I implore you, that the communi cation by special messages, and orders between these agents and their constituents on each variation of the case, when the parties come to contend together and to dispute on their relative propor tions, will be a matter of delay, perplexity, and confusion that never can have an end. FORCE OR CONCILIATION? 143 If all the colonies do not appear at the outcry what is the condition of those assemblies who offer, by themselves or their agents, to tax themselves up to your ideas of their proportion? The refractory colonies who refuse all composition will remain taxed only to your old impositions, which, however grievous in principle, are trifling as to production. The obedient colonies in this scheme are heavily taxed; the refractory remain un burdened. What vsdU you do? Will you lay new and heavier taxes by Parliament on the disobedient ? Pray consider in what way you can do it. You are perfectly convinced that in the way of taxing you can do nothing but at the ports. Now suppose it is Virginia that refuses to appear at your auction, while Mary land and North Carolina bid handsomely for their ransom, and are taxed to your quota. How will you put these colonies on a par ? Will you tax the tobacco of Virginia ? If you do you give its death wound to your English revenue at home, and to one of the very greatest articles of your own foreign trade. If you tax the import of that rebellious colony, what do you tax but your own manufactures, or the goods of some other obedient and already well-taxed colony? Who has said one word on this labyrinth of detail, which bewilders you more and more as you enter into it? Who has presented, who can present you with a clew to lead you out of it? I think, sir, it is impossible that you should not recollect that the colony bounds are so implicated in one another (you know it by your own experiments in the bill for prohibiting the New England fishery) that you can lay no possible restraints on almost any of them which may not be presently eluded if you do not confound the innocent with the guilty, and burden those whom, upon every principle, you ought to exonerate. He must be grossly ignorant of America who thinks that, without falling into this confusion of all rules of equity and policy, you can restrain any single colony, especially Virginia and Maryland, the central and most important of them all. Let it also be considered that either in the present confusion you settle a permanent contingent which will and must be tri fling, and then you have no effectual revenue, or you change the quota at every exigency, and then on every new repartition you will have a new quarrel. Reflect, besides, that, when you have fixed a quota for every colony you have not provided for prompt and punctual payment. Suppose one, two, five, ten years arrears. You cannot issue a Treasury Extent ^ against the failing colony. You must make " A writ of commission for valuing real property to satisfy a Crown debt. 144 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES new Boston Port bills, new restraining laws, new acts for drag ging men to England for trial. You must send out new fleets, new armies. All is to begin again. From this day forward the empire is never to know an hour 's tranquillity. An intestine fire will be kept alive in the bowels of the colonies which one time or another must consume this whole empire. I allow, indeed, that the empire of Germany raises her revenue and her troops by quotas and contingents; but the revenue of the empire, and the army of the empire, is the worst revenue and the worst army in the world. Instead of a standing revenue you will therefore have a per petual quarrel. Indeed, the noble lord who proposed this project of a ransom by auction seemed himself to be of that opinion. His project was rather designed for breaking the union of the colonies than for establishing a revenue. He confessed that he apprehended that his proposal would not be to their taste. I say this scheme of disunion seems to be at the bottom of the project; for I will not suspect that the noble lord meant nothing but merely to delude the nation by an airy phantom which he never intended to realize. But, whatever his views may be, as I propose the peace and union of the colonies as the very foundation of my plan, it cannot accord with one whose founda tion is perpetual discord. Compare the two. This I offer to give you is plain and sim ple. The other, full of perplexed and intricate mazes. This is mild ; that harsh. This is found by experience effectual for its purposes; the other is a new project. This is universal; the other calculated for certain colonies only. This is immediate in its conciliatory operation; the other remote, contingent, full of hazard. Mine is what becomes the dignity of a ruling people ; gratuitous, unconditional, and not held out as matter of bargain and sale. I have done my duty in proposing it to you. I have indeed tired you by a long discourse ; but this is the misfortune of those to whose influence nothing will be conceded, and who must win every inch of their ground by argument. You have heard me with goodness. May you decide with wisdom ! For my part, I feel my mind greatly disburdened by what I have done to-day. I have been the less fearful of trying your patience because on this subject I mean to spare it altogether in future. I have this comfort that, in every stage of the American affairs, I have steadily opposed the measures that have produced the confusion and may bring on the destruction of this empire. I now go so far as to risk a proposal of my own. If I cannot give peace to my country, I give it to my conscience. FORCE OR CONCILIATION? 145 But what, says the financier, is peace to us without money? Your plan gives us no revenue. No ! But it does — for it secures to the subject the power of refusal — the first of all revenues. Experience is a cheat, and fact a liar, if this power in the subject of proportioning his grant, or of not granting at all, has not been found the richest mine of revenue ever discovered by the skill or by the fortune of man. It does not indeed vote you £152,750 lis. 2%d., nor any other paltry limited sum, but it gives the strong box itself, the fund, the bank, from whence only revenues can arise among a people sensible of freedom: Posita luditur arca.^ Cannot you in England; cannot you at this time of day; cannot you — a House of Commons — trust to the principle which has raised so mighty a revenue, and accumulated a debt of near one hundred and forty millions in this country? Is this prin ciple to be true in England and false everywhere else ? Is it not true in Ireland ? Has it not hitherto been true in the colonies ? Why should you presume that, in any country, a body duly con stituted for any functions will neglect to perform its duty, and abdicate its trust? Such a presumption would go against all government in all modes. But in truth this dread of penury of supply from a free assembly has no foundation in nature. For first observe that, besides the desire, which all men have nat urally, of supporting the honor of their own government, that sense of dignity and that security of property which ever at tends freedom have a tendency to increase the stock of the free community. Most may be taken where most is accumulated. And what is the soil or climate where experience has not uni formly proved that the voluntary flow of heaped-up plenty, bursting from the weight of its own rich luxuriance, has ever run with a more copious stream of revenue than could be squeezed from the dry husks of oppressed indigence by the straining of all the politic machinery in the world ? I, for one, protest against compounding our demands. I declare against compounding, for a poor limited sum, the im mense ever-growing, eternal debt which is due to generous gov ernment from protected freedom. And so may I speed in the great object I propose to you, as I think it would not only be an act of injustice, but would be the worst economy in the world, to compel the colonies to a sum certain, either in the way of ran som or in the way of compulsory compact. But to clear up my ideas on this subject; a revenue from America transmitted hither— do not delude yourselves— you > ' ' The strong-box is staked. ' ' — Juvenal, satire I. 146 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES never can receive it — no, not a shilling. We have experienced that from remote countries it is not to be expected. If, when you attempted to extract revenue from Bengal, you were obliged to return in loan what you had taken in imposition, what can you expect from North America? — for certainly, if ever there was a country qualified to produce wealth, it is India; or an institution fit for the transmission, it is the East India Company. America has none of these aptitudes. If America gives you tax able objects on which you lay your duties here, and gives you at the same time a surplus by a foreign sale of her commodities to pay the duties on these objects which you tax at home, she has performed her part to the British revenue. But with regard to her own internal establishments she may, I doubt not she will, contribute in moderation ; I say in moderation, for she ought not to be permitted to exhaust herself. She ought to be reserved to a war, the weight of which, with the enemies that we are most likely to have, must be considerable in her quarter of the globe. There she may serve you, and serve you essentially. For that service, for all service, whether of revenue, trade, or empire, my trust is in her interest in the British constitution. My hold of the colonies is in the close affection which grows from common names, from kindred blood, from similar privileges, and equal protection. These are ties which, though light as air, are as strong as links of iron. Let the colonies always keep the idea of their civil rights associated with your government ; they will cling and grapple to you, and no force under heaven will be of power to tear them from their allegiance. But let it be once understood that your government may be one thing, and their privileges another, that these two things may exist without any mutual relation, the cement is gone; the cohesion is loosened; and everything hastens to decay and dissolution. As long as you have the wisdom to keep the sovereign authority of this country as the sanctuary of liberty, the sacred temple conse crated to our common faith, wherever the chosen race and sons of England worship Freedom they will turn their faces toward you. The more they multiply the more friends you will have. The more ardently they love liberty the more perfect will be their obedience. Slavery they can have anywhere. It is a weed that grows in every soil. They may have it from Spain; they may have it from Prussia ; but, until you become lost to all feel ing of your true interest and your natural dignity, freedom they can have from none but you. This is the commodity of price of which you have the monopoly. This is the true Act of Naviga tion which binds to you the commerce of the colonies, and FORCE OR CONCILIATION? 147 through them secures to you the wealth of the world. Deny them this participation of freedom and you break that sole bond which originally made, and must still preserve, the unity of the empire. Do not entertain so weak an imagination as that your registers and your bonds, your affidavits and your sufferances, your cockets and your clearances, are what form the great securi ties of your commerce. Do not dream that your letters of office, and your instructions, and your suspending clauses, are the things that hold together the great contexture of this mysterious whole. These things do not make your government. Dead in struments, passive tools as they are, it is the spirit of the English communion that gives all their life and efficacy to them. It is the spirit of the English constitution which, infused through the mighty mass, pervades, feeds, unites, invigorates, vivifies every part of the empire, even down to the minutest member. All this, I know well enough, will sound wild and chimerical to the profane herd of those vulgar and mechanical politicians who think that nothing exists but what is gross and material, and who, therefore, far from being qualified to be directors of the great movement of empire, are not fit to turn a wheel in the machine. But to men truly initiated these master principles are, in truth, all in all. Magnanimity in politics is not seldom the truest wisdom; and a great empire and little minds go ill to gether. If we are conscious of our situation, and glow with zeal to fill our place as becomes our station and ourselves, we ought to auspicate all our public proceeding on America with the old warning of the church, sursum corda! ^ We ought to elevate our minds to the greatness of that trust to which the order of Providence has called us. By adverting to the dignity of this high calling our ancestors have turned a savage wilderness into a glorious empire, and have made the most extensive and the only honorable conquests, not by destroying, but by promoting, the wealth, the number, the happiness of the human race. Let us get an American revenue as we have got an American empire. English privileges have made it all that it is ; English privileges alone will make it all it can be. In full confidence of this unalterable truth I now, quod felix faustumque sit," lay the first stone in the temple of peace ; and I move you the first of my propositions. ' ' ' Lift up your hearts. ' ' = "May it be happy and auspicious," the Roman invocation at the inauguration of new enterprises, such as the founding of a temple. 148 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES This was defeated, 270 votes to 78. The others were not put to vote, since it was apparent that Parliament was determined at all costs to assert supremacy over the colonies. Later, when the war that resulted from this determination had fully justified all his predictions of dishonor to British arms, Burke thus commented upon the disastrous obstinacy of the Government: The Risht to Tax America EDMUiro BURKE But, Mr. Speaker, "we have a right to tax America." Oh, inestimable right! Oh, wonderful, transcendent right! the as sertion of which has cost this country thirteen provinces, six islands, one hundred thousand lives, and seventy millions of money. Oh, invaluable right! for the sake of which we have sacrificed our rank among nations, our importance abroad, and our happiness at home! Oh, right! more dear to us than our existence, which has already cost us so much, and which seems likely to cost us our all. Infatuated man! Miserable and un done country! not to know that the claim of right, without the power of enforcing it, is nugatory and idle. We have a right to tax America, the noble lord tells us, therefore we ought to tax America. This is the profound logic which comprises the whole chain of his reasoning. Not inferior to this was the wisdom of him who resolved to shear the wolf. What, shear a wolf! Have you considered the resistance, the difficulty, the danger of the attempt? No, says the madman, I have considered nothing but the right. Man has a right of dominion over the beasts of the forest ; and therefore I will shear the wolf. How wonderful that a nation could be thus deluded! But the noble lord deals in cheats and delusions. They are the daily traffic of his invention; and he will continue to play off his cheats on this House, so long as he thinks them necessary to his purpose, and so long as he has money enough at command to bribe gentlemen to pretend that they believe him. But a black and bitter day of reckoning will surely come; and whenever the day comes I trust I shall be able, by a parliamentary im peachment, to bring upon the heads of the authors of our calami ties the punishment they deserve. PEiCE When fell Debate i civO Wars shall cease, CommeTce shall spread her Sails o"er all the Seas. ExGLAKD, unrivaled in the liberal Ans. Shall bear her t>emus to remotest Pans. Taie to thy Breast Amirica atrain, Thou may'st defy imperious Praxcx .t Spadc. Frontispi'tTC^ in the "London Ma^asm^." :??5 149 CHAPTER V Colonies vs. Pabliament Speech of James Wilson: "In Vindication of the Colonies" — The Virginia Convention; Eesolutions of Patrick Henry to Adopt Defensive Measures: they are opposed by Eichard Bland, Benjamin Harrison, Eobert Carter Nicholas and Edmund Pendleton; they are supported by Henry in his Speech "Liberty or Death I" — ^Preparations for Armed Defence — The Battle of Lexington and Concord — ' ' Appeal to the British People by the Massachusetts Convention" — The Second Continental Congress — Address to the British People (drafted by Eichard Henry Lee) — Congress Eejects Lord North's Plan of Conciliation — George Washington Appointed Com mander-in-Chief of the Army— Washington 's Speech of Acceptance — "Declaration to the World" by Congress (drafted by John Dickinson) — Preparations for Defence — Eepressive Acts of Parliament. IN January, 1775, a convention of the province of Pennsylvania met at Philadelphia to take action on the King's speech at the opening of Parliament (see page 99). A prominent member of this convention was James Wilson, a man to whom the country was afterwards to be largely indebted for his influential part in the for mation of its constitution. He delivered the following speech before the con vention : In Vindication of the Colonies james wilson Mr. Chairman — ^Whence, sir, proceeds aU the invidious and ill-grounded clamor against the colonists of America ? Why are they stigmatized in Britain, as licentious and ungovernable? Why is their virtuous opposition to the illegal attempts of their governors represented under the falsest colors, and placed in the most ungracious point of view? This opposition, when ex hibited in its true light, and when viewed, with unjaundiced eyes, from a proper situation, and at a proper distance, stands 150 COLONIES VS. PARLIAMENT 151 confessed the lovely offspring of freedom. It breathes the spirit of its parent. Of this ethereal spirit the whole conduct, and particularly the late conduct of the colonists, has shown them eminently possessed. It has animated and regulated every part of their proceedings. It has been recognized to be genuine by all those symptoms and effects by which it has been distinguished in other ages and other countries. It has been calm and regular : it has not acted without occasion: it has not acted dispropor- tionably to the occasion. As the attempts, open or secret, to undermine or to destroy it have been repeated or enforced, in a just degree its vigilance and its vigor have been exerted to defeat or to disappoint them. As its exertions have been suffi cient for those purposes hitherto let us hence draw a joyful prognostic that they will continue sufficient for those purposes hereafter. It is not yet exhausted; it will still operate irre sistibly whenever a necessary occasion shall call forth its strength. Permit me, sir, by appealing, in a few instances, to the spirit and conduct of the colonists, to evince that what I have said of them is just. Did they disclose any uneasiness at the proceed ings and claims of the British Parliament, before those claims and proceedings afforded a reasonable cause for it? Did they even disclose any uneasiness when a reasonable cause for it was first given ? Our rights were invaded by their regulations of our internal policy. We submitted to them: we were unwilling to oppose them. The spirit of liberty was slow to act. When those invasions were renewed; when the efficacy and malignancy of them were attempted to be redoubled by the Stamp Act; when chains were formed for us; and preparations were made for riveting them on our limbs, what measures did we pursue ? The spirit of liberty found it necessary now to act: but she acted with the calmness and decent dignity suited to her character. Were we rash or seditious ? Did we discover want of loyalty to our Sovereign ? Did we betray want of affection to our brethren in Britain? Let our dutiful and reverential petitions to the Throne — let our respectful, though firm, remonstrances to the Parliament — let our warm and affectionate addresses to our brethren, and (we will still call them) our friends in Great Britain — let all those, transmitted from every part of the conti nent, testify the truth. By their testimony let our conduct be tried. As our proceedings, during the existence and operation of the Stamp Act, prove fully and incontestably the painful sen sations that tortured our breasts from the prospect of disunion 152 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES with Britain; the peals of joy, which burst forth universally, upon the repeal of that odious statute, loudly proclaim the heart felt delight produced in us by a reconciliation with her. Un suspicious, because undesigning, we buried our complaints and the causes of them in oblivion, and returned, with eagerness, to our former unreserved confidence. Our connection with our parent country, and the reciprocal blessings resulting from it to her and to us, were the favorite and pleasing topics of our public discourses and our private conversations. Lulled in delightful security, we dreamed of nothing but increasing fondness and friendship, cemented and strengthened by a kind and perpetual communication of good offices. Soon, however, too soon, were we awakened from the soothing dreams ! Our enemies renewed their designs against us, not with less malice, but with more art. Under the plausible pretence of regulating our trade, and, at the same time, of making provision for the administration of justice and the support of government, in some of the colonies, they pursued their scheme of depriving us of our property without our consent. As the attempts to distress us, and to degrade us to a rank inferior to that of freemen, appeared now to be re duced into a regular system, it became proper, on our part, to form a regular system for counteracting them. We ceased to import goods from Great Britain. Was this measure dictated by selfishness or by licentiousness? Did it not injure ourselves, while it injured the British merchants and manufacturers ? Was it inconsistent vsdth the peaceful demeanor of subjects to abstain from making purchases, when our freedom and our safety ren dered it necessary for us to abstain from them? A regard for our freedom and our safety was our only motive ; for no sooner had the Parliament, by repealing part of the revenue laws, in spired us with the flattering hopes that they had departed from their intentions of oppressing and of taxing us, than we forsook our plan for defeating those intentions, and began to import as formerly. Far from being peevish or captious, we took no pub lic notice even of their declaratory law of dominion over us : our candor led us to consider it as a decent expedient of retreating from the actual exercise of that dominion. But, alas ! the root of bitterness still remained. The duty on tea was reserved to furnish occasion to the ministry for a new effort to enslave and to ruin us; and the East India Company were chosen, and consented to be the detested instruments of ministerial despotism and cruelty. A cargo of their tea arrived at Boston. By a low artifice of the governor, and by the wicked activity of the tools of government, it was rendered impossible COLONIES VS. PARLIAMENT 153 to store it up, or to send it back, as was done at other places. A number of persons, unknown, destroyed it. Let us here make a concession to our enemies : let us suppose that the transaction deserves all the dark and hideous colors in which they have painted it: let us even suppose (for our cause admits of an excess of candor) that all their exaggerated ac counts of it were confined strictly to the truth : what will follow ? Will it follow that every British colony in America, or even the colony of Massachusetts Bay, or even the town of Boston, in that colony, merits the imputation of being factious and seditious? Let the frequent mobs and riots that have happened in Great Britain upon much more trivial occasions shame our calumni ators into silence. Will it follow, because the rules of order and regular government were, in that instance, violated by the of fenders, that, for this reason, the principles of the constitution, and the maxims of justice, must be violated by their punishment ? Will it follow, because those who were guilty could not be known, that, therefore, those who were knovsTi not to be guilty must suffer ? Will it follow that even the guilty should be condemned without being heard — that they should be condemned upon par tial testimony, upon the representations of their avowed and embittered enemies? Why were they not tried in courts of justice, known to their constitution, and by juries of their neigh borhood ? Their courts and their juries were not, in the case of Captain Preston,^ transported beyond the bounds of justice by their resentment : why, then, should it be presumed that, in the case of those offenders, they would be prevented from doing jus tice by their affection? But the colonists, it seems, must be stripped of their judicial, as well as of their legislative, powers. They must be bound by a legislature, they must be tried by a jurisdiction, not their own. Their constitutions must be changed : their liberties must be abridged : and those who shall be most in famously active in changing their constitutions and abridging their liberties must, by an express provision, be exempted from punishment. I do not exaggerate the matter, sir, when I extend these observations to all the colonists. The Parliament meant to ex tend the effects of their proceedings to all the colonists. The plan on which their proceedings are formed extends to them all. From an incident of no very uncommon or atrocious nature, which happened in one colony, in one town in that colony, and in which only a few of the inhabitants of that town took a part, an occasion has been taken by those who probably intended it, 'Charged with murder in the Boston "Massacre." 154 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES and who certainly prepared the way for it, to impose upon that colony, and to lay a foundation and a precedent for imposing upon all thef rest, a system of statutes, arbitrary, unconstitu tional, oppressive, in every view, and in every degree subversive of the rights, and inconsistent with even the name of freemen. Were the colonists so blind as not to discern the consequences of these measures? Were they so supinely inactive as to take no steps for guarding against them? They were not. They ought not to have been so. We saw a breach made in those bar riers which our ancestors, British and American, with so much care, with so much danger, with so much treasure, and with so much blood had erected, cemented, and established for the secur ity of their liberties, and — with filial piety let us mention it — of ours. We saw the attack actually begun upon one part: ought we to have folded our hands in indolence, to have lulled our eyes in slumbers, till the attack was carried on, so as to become irre sistible in every part ? But still our measures have been such as the spirit of liberty and of loyalty directed ; not such as a spirit of sedition or of disaffection would pursue. Our counsels have been conducted without rashness and faction: our resolutions have been taken without frenzy or fury. That the sentiments of every individual concerning that im portant object, his liberty, might be known and regarded meet ings have been held and deliberations carried on in every par ticular district. That the sentiments of all those individuals might gradually and regularly be collected into a single point, and the conduct of each inspired and directed by the result of the whole united; county committees, provincial conventions, a Continental Congress have been appointed, have met and re solved. By this means a chain — more inestimable, and, while the necessity for it continues, we hope, more indissoluble than one of gold — a chain of freedom has been formed, of which every indi vidual in these colonies who is willing to preserve the greatest of human blessings, his liberty, has the pleasure of beholding himself a link. Are these measures, sir, the brats of disloyalty, of disaffec tion? There are miscreants among us, wasps that suck poison from the most salubrious flowers, who tell us they are. They tell us that all those assemblies are unlawful, and unauthorized by our constitutions; and that all their deliberations and resolu tions are so many transgressions of the duty of subjects. The utmost malice brooding over the utmost baseness, and nothing; but such a hated commixture must have hatched this calumny. Do not those men know — ^would they have others not to know— r COLONIES VS. PARLIAMENT 155 that it was impossible for the inhabitants of the same province, and for the legislatures of the different provinces, to communi cate their sentiments to one another in the modes appointed for such purposes, by their different constitutions? Do not they know — would thej- have others not to know — that all this was rendered impossible by those very persons who now, or whose minions now, urge this objection against us? Do not they know — would they have others not to know — that the different as semblies, who could be dissolved by the governors, were, in con sequence of ministerial mandates, dissolved by them whenever they attempted to turn their attention to the greatest objects which, as guardians of the liberty of their constituents, could be presented to their view? The arch enemy of the human race torments them only for those actions to which he has tempted, but to which he has not necessarily obliged them. Those men refine even upon infernal malice: they accuse, they threaten us (superlative impudence!) for taking those very steps which we were laid under the disagreeable necessity of taking by them selves, or by those in whose hateful service they are enlisted. As the invasions of our rights have become more and more formidable our opposition to them has increased in firmness and vigor, in a just, and in no more than a just, proportion. We will not import goods from Great Britain or Ireland : in a little time we will suspend our exportations to them; and, if the same illiberal and destructive system of policy be still carried on against us, in a little time more we will not consume their manu factures. In that colony where the attacks have been most open, immediate, and direct some further steps have been taken, and those steps have met with the deserved approbation of the other provinces. Is this scheme of conduct allied to rebellion? Those who would blend, and whose crimes have made it necessary for them to blend, the tyrannic acts of administration with the lawful measures of government, and to veil every flagitious procedure of the ministry under the venerable mantle of majesty, pretend to discover, and employ their emissaries to publish the pretended discovery of such symptoms. We are not, however, to be im posed upon by such shallow artifices. No ! we have not violated the laws or the constitution ; and, therefore, we are safe as long as the laws retain their force and the constitution its vigor. But we behold, sir, with the deepest anguish that our oppo sition has not been as effectual as it has been constitutional. The hearts of our oppressors have not relented : our complaints have not been heard: our grievances have not been redressed: our 156 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES rights are still invaded : and have we no cause to dread that the invasions of them will be enforced, in a manner against which all reason and argument, and all opposition, of every peaceful kind, will be vain? Our opposition has hitherto increased with our oppression: shall it, in the most desperate of all contingencies, observe the same proportion ? Let us pause, sir, before we give an answer to this question. The fate of us; the fate of millions now alive; the fate of mil lions yet unborn, depends upon the answer. Let it be the result of calmness and intrepidity; let it be dictated by the principles of loyalty, and the principles of liberty. Let it be such as never, in the worst events, to give us reason to reproach our selves, or others reason to reproach us, for having done too much or too little. Perhaps the following resolution may be found not altogether unbefitting our present situation. With the greatest deference I submit it to the mature consideration of this assembly: "That the act of the British Parliament for altering the charter and constitution of the colony of Massachusetts Bay, and those 'for the impartial administration of justice' in that colony, for shutting the port of Boston, and for quartering soldiers on the inhabitants of the colonies, are unconstitutional and void; and can confer no authority upon those who act under color of them. That the Grown cannot, by its prerogative, alter the charter or constitution of that colony: that all attempts to alter the said charter or constitution, unless by the authority of the legislature of that colony, are manifest violations of the rights of that colony, and illegal: that all force employed to carry such unjust and illegal attempts into execution is force without authority: that it is the right of British subjects to re sist such force: that this right is founded both upon the letter and the spirit of the British constitution." Our claim rests upon plain and indubitable truths. We do not send members to the British Parliament: we have parlia ments (it is immaterial what name they go by) of our own. That a void act can confer no authority upon those who pro ceed under color of it is a self-evident proposition. We can be at no loss in resolving that the King cannot, by his prerogative, alter the charter or constitution of the colony of Massachusetts Bay. Upon what principle could such an exer tion of prerogative be justified? On the acts of Parliament? They are already proved to be void. On the discretionary power which the King has of acting where the laws are silent? That power must be subservient to the interest and happiness of those COLONIES VS. PARLIAMENT 157 concerning whom it operates. But I go further. Instead of being supported by law, or the principles of prerogative, such an alteration is totally and absolutely repugnant to both. It is contrary to express law. The charter and constitution we speak of are confirmed by the only legislative power capable of con firming them; and no other power but that which can ratify can destroy. If it is contrary to express law the consequence is necessary that it is contrary to the principles of prerogative; for prerogative can operate only when the law is silent. In no view can this alteration be justified, or so much as excused. It cannot be justified or excused by the acts of Parlia ment ; because the authority of Parliament does not extend to it : it cannot be justified or excused by the operation of prerogative ; because this is none of the cases in which prerogative can oper ate : it cannot be justified or excused by the legislative authority of the colony ; because that authority never has been, and, I pre sume, never will be, given for any such purpose. I will now advance a step further and say that aU attempts to alter the charter or constitution of any colony, unless by the authority of its own legislature, are violations of its rights, and illegal. If such attempts are illegal, must not all force, employed to carry them into execution, be force employed against law, and without authority ? The conclusion is unavoidable. Have not British subjects, then, a right to resist such force — force acting with authority — force employed contrary to law — force employed to destroy the very existence of law and of lib erty ? They have, sir ; and this right is secured to them both by the letter and the spirit of the British constitution, by which the measures and the conditions of their obedience are appointed. The British liberties, sir, and the means and the right of defend ing them, are not the grants of princes ; and of what our princes never granted they surely can never deprive us. "Id rex potest," says the law, "quod de jure potest." "The king's power is a power according to law." His commands, if the authority of Lord Chief Justice Hale may be depended upon, are under the directive power of the law ; and consequently in valid, if unlawful. "Commissions," says my Lord Coke, "are legal, and are like the king's writs; and none are lawful but such as are allowed by the common law, or warranted by some act of Parliament. ' ' Let us examine any commission expressly directing those to whom it is given to use military force for carrying into execu tion the alterations proposed to be made in the charter and con- 158 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES stitution of Massachusetts Bay by the foregoing maxims and authorities; and what we have said concerning it will appear obvious and conclusive. It is not warranted by any act of Par liament, because, as has been mentioned on this, and has been proved on other occasions, any such act is void. It is not war ranted, and I believe it will not be pretended that it is war ranted, by the common law. It is not warranted by the royal prerogative, because, as has already been fully shown, it is dia metrically opposite to the principles and the ends of prerogative. Upon what foundation, then, can it lean and be supported? Upon none. Like an enchanted castle, it may terrify those whose eyes are affected by the magic influence of the sorcerers, despot ism and slavery; but so soon as the charm is dissolved, and the genuine rays of liberty and of the constitution dart in upon us, the formidable appearance vanishes, and we discover that it was the baseless fabric of a vision that never had any real existence. And now, sir, let me appeal to the impartial tribunal of rea son and truth; let me appeal to every unprejudiced and ju dicious observer of the laws of Britain and of the constitution of the British government; let me appeal, I say, whether the principles on which I argue, or the principles on which alone my arguments can be opposed, are those which ought to be adhered to and acted upon ; which of them are most consonant to our laws and liberties; which of them have the strongest, and are likely to have the most effectual tendency to establish and secure the royal power and dignity. British Government Prohibits Second Congress The New York Assembly met in January, 1775, and endorsed the Bill of Rights adopted by the Congress at Philadelphia, and prepared petitions to the King, Lords, and Commons, disapproving "of the violent measures that had been pursued in some of the colonies," and claiming an exemption from internal taxation and the exclusive right of providing for the support of their own civil government and the administration of justice as their undoubted and inalienable rights as English men. When the petition of the Assembly was presented to the House of Commons a hearing was refused it because it denied or called in question the right of Parliament to tax the colonies. A circular letter was COLONIES VS. PARLIAMENT 159 sent by the British Secretary of State to the colonial governors forbidding the election of delegates to the Congress in May, 1775, which had been determined upon by the Congress of 1774. Notwithstanding this royal recommendation dele gates were chosen from all the colonies to attend the Congress. The Virginia Convention The leading spirit of the provincial convention of Virginia which met in Richmond March, 1775, to choose delegates to the May Congress was Patrick Henry. His speech before the convention displayed an in crease of his boldness of spirit. It is the most declama tory of all his orations, and therefore has become the most popular, being recited by generations of American schoolboys. It has been called "Patrick Henry's in dividual declaration of war against Great Britain." It was upon the following resolutions which he had pro posed to the convention: 1. Resolved: That a well regulated militia, composed of gentlemen and yeomen, is the natural strength and only security of a free government ; that such a militia in this colony would forever render it unnecessary for the mother country to keep among us, for the purpose of our defence, any standing army or mercenary forces, always subversive of the quiet and danger ous to the liberties of the people, and would obviate the pretext of taxing us for their support. 2. That such a militia is at this time especially necessary to protect our rights and liberties, which have been rendered insecure by the remissness of government in calling our Legis lature together. 3. That this colony be immediately put into a posture of defence. These resolutions precipitated an animated debate in which they were opposed as premature by Colonels Richard Bland and Benjamin Harrison, and Robert Carter Nicholas and Edmund Pendleton. Mr. Henry stood alone in their support. The oration was delivered in the "Old Church" at 160 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES Richmond. One who heard the speech thus describes the scene : "Henry rose with an unearthly fire burning in his eye. He commenced somewhat calmly, but the smothered excitement be gan more and more to play upon his features and thrill in the tones of his voice. The tendons of his neck stood out white and rigid like whipcords. His voice rose louder and louder, until the walls of the building, and all within them, seemed to shake and rock in its tremendous vibrations. Finally his pale face and glaring eyes became terrible to look upon. Men leaned forward in their seats, with their heads strained forward, their faces pale, and their eyes glaring like the speaker's. His last exclamation, 'Give me liberty or give me death!' was like the shout of the leader which turns back the rout of battle. ' ' ^ Liberty or Death! patrick henry Mr. President. — No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope that it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, enter taining, as I do, opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery ; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfil the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opin ions at such a time, through fear of giving offence, I should con sider myself as guilty of treason toward my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings. Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that syren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty ? Are we disposed to be of the num ber of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear 'From Tyler's "Life of Patrick Henry." COLONIES VS. PARLLA.MENT 161 not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation ? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth ; to know the worst and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided ; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And, judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British Ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House ? Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received ? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation ? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love ? Let us not deceive our selves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible mo tives for it? Has Great Britain any enemy in this quarter of the world to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies ? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British Ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument ? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer on the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication ? What terms shall we flnd which have not been already exhausted ? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have pe titioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remon strances have produced additional violence and insult ; our sup plications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconcilia tion. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be 162 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES free — if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privi leges for which we have been so long contending — if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be ob tained, we must fight ! I repeat it, sir, we must fight ! An ap peal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us ! They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger ? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction ? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of the means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three mil lions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in sub mission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston ! The war is inevitable — and let it come ! I repeat it, sir, let it come ! It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry peace, peace — ^but there is no peace. The war is actually begun ! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are al ready in the field ! Why stand we here idle ? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery ? Forbid it. Almighty God ! I know not what course others may take ; but, as for me, give me liberty, or give me death ! In pursuance of Henry's resolution a committee was appointed to present a plan of armed defence of Vir ginia. On it were appointed, among others, Henry, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Richard Henry Lee. g^Mliitiil^^ AMERICA IX TLAMES 163 164 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES The "next gale that swept from the North" did indeed bear "the clash of resounding arms — the news of Lexington and Concord (April 19). Ere it reached Virginia all New England was in arms, and thousands of the patriots were moving toward the scene of action, led by such veterans of the French War as Israel Putnam of Connecticut. The provincial Congress of Massachusetts imme diately resolved that an army of thirteen thousand men should be raised and the other New England colonies were requested to furnish an additional number for the defence of the country. The treasurer was directed to borrow £100,000 for the use of the province, and they declared that the citizens were no longer under any obligations of obedience to Governor Gage. The provincial Congress also sent at once to Dr. Franklin, their agent in England, an address to the people of Great Britain in which they gave an account of the beginning of hostilities and added : Appeal to the British People by massachusetts These, brethren, are marks of ministerial vengeance against this colony for refusing, with her sister colonies, a submission to slavery ; but they have not yet detached us from our royal sov ereign. We profess to be his loyal and dutiful subjects, and so hardly dealt with as we have been are still ready with our lives and fortunes to defend his person, family, crown, and dignity. Nevertheless, to the persecution and tyranny of his cruel min istry we will not tamely submit; appealing to heaven for the justice of our cause, we determine to die or be free. We cannot think that the honor, wisdom, and valor of Brit ons will suffer them to be long inactive spectators of measures in which they themselves are so deeply interested ; measures pur sued in opposition to the solemn protest of many noble lords and expressed sense of conspicuous commoners, whose knowledge and virtue have long characterized them as some of the greatest men in the nation ; measures executing contrary to the interest, petitions, and resolves -of many large, respectable, and opulent counties, cities, and boroughs in Great Britain ; measures highly incompatible with justice, but still pursued with a specious pre- COLONIES VS. PARLIAMENT 165 tence of easing the nation of its burdens; measures which, if successful, must end in the ruin and slavery of Britain, as well as the persecuted American colonies. We sincerely hope that the great sovereign of the Universe, who hath so often appeared for the English nation, will support you in every rational and manly exertion with these colonies for saving us from ruin; and that in a constitutional connection with the mother country we shall soon be altogether a free and happy people. Second Continental Congress The second Continental Congress convened accord ing to arrangement on May 10, 1775. It met in the state house (now Independence Hall). Dr. Benjamin Franklin, who had returned from England, was added to the Pennsylvania delegation. John Hancock, the proscribed patriot, was elected President on May 24, in place of Peyton Randolph, who had been obliged to return to Virginia by ill health. The beginning of hostilities in Massachusetts re ceived the immediate attention of Congress. They unanimously determined that the colonies be placed in a state of defence, so that Parliament might not carry their several unconstitutional and oppressive acts into execution by force of arms. But Congress still ex pressed an ardent wish for a restoration of former harmony, and accordingly resolved to present another petition to the King. This petition was written by John Dickinson, who had penned the one to His Majesty in the first Congress. This Congress also addressed the people of Great Britain and the province of Quebec, and it sent an address to the inhabitants of Ireland, and a letter to those of the island of Jamaica. The address to the British people was prepared by a committee which consisted of Richard Henry Lee, Robert R. Livingston, and Edmund Randolph. To Mr. Lee may be credited its language. Address to the British People The endearing appellation of "friends, countrymen, and brethren" was used toward the people of Great Britain, and they were entreated by these ties seriously 166 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES to attend to the second attempt of Congress to prevent their dissolution. After again recapitulating former injuries and stat ing the recent acts of hostility by the wanton destruction of their lives, as well as property, they seriously ask : Whether the descendants of Britons could tamely submit to this? "No," they add, "we never will — while we revere the memory of our gallant and virtuous ancestors, we never can sur render those glorious privileges, for which they fought, bled, and conquered." "Admit," they tell them, "that your fleets and armies can destroy our towns, and ravage our coasts ; these are inconsiderable objects, things of no moment to men whose bosoms glow with the ardor of liberty. We can retire beyond the reach of your navy and, without any sensible diminution of the necessaries of life, enjoy a luxury, which, from that period, you will want, the luxury of being free." They again repel the charge of aiming at independence. "Our enemies charge us with sedition. In what does it con sist ? In our refusal to submit to unwarrantable acts of injustice and cruelty? If so, show us a period in your history in which you have not been equally seditious. "We are accused of aiming at independence; but how is this accusation supported ? By the allegations of your ministers, not by our actions. Abused, insulted, and contemned, what steps have we pursued to obtain redress? We have carried our duti ful petitions to the throne. We have applied to your justice for relief. We have retrenched our luxury, and withheld our trade. "The advantages of our commerce were designed as a com pensation for your protection: when you ceased to protect, for what were we to compensate ? "What has been the success of our endeavors? The clemency of our sovereign is unhappily diverted ; our petitions are treated with indignity; our prayers answered by insults. Our applica tion to you remains unnoticed, and leaves us the melancholy ap prehension of your wanting either the will or the power to as sist us. "Even under these circumstances, what measures have we taken that betray a desire of independence ? Have we called in the aid of those foreign powers who are the rivals of your gran deur ? When your troops were few and defenceless, did we take advantage of their distress and expel them our towns ? Or have we permitted them to fortify, to receive new aid, and to acquire additional strength? COLONIES VS. PARLLA^MENT 167 "Let your enemies and ours persuade you that in this we were influenced by fear or any other unworthy motive. The lives of Britons are still dear to us. They are the children of our parents, and an uninterrupted intercourse of mutual benefits had knit the bonds of friendship. When hostilities were com menced, when, on a late occasion we were wantonly attacked by your troops, though we repelled their assaults and returned their blows, yet we lamented the wounds they obliged us to give ; nor have we yet learned to rejoice at a victory over Englishmen. " As we wish not to color our actions, or disguise our thoughts, we shall, in the simple language of truth, avow the measures we have pursued, the motives upon which we have acted, and our future designs. "When our late petition to the throne produced no other effect than fresh injuries, and votes of your legislature, calcu lated to justify every severity ; when your fleets and your armies were prepared to wrest from us our property, to rob us of our liberties or our lives ; when the hostile attempts of General Gage evinced his designs, we levied armies for our security and de fence. When the powers vested in the governor of Canada gave us reason to apprehend danger from that quarter; and we had frequent intimations that a cruel and savage enemy was to be let loose upon the defenceless inhabitants of our frontiers; we took such measures as prudence dictated, as necessity will justify. We possessed ourselves of Crown Point and Ticonderoga. Yet, give us leave most solemnly to assure you, that, we have not lost sight of the object we have ever had in view: a reconciliation with you on constitutional principles, and a restoration of that friendly intercourse which, to the advantage of both, we till lately maintained. ' ' After reminding them that the loss of liberty in America would be only a prelude to its loss in Great Britain, they con clude : "a cloud hangs over your head and ours — ere this reaches you it may probably burst upon us; let us, then (before the re membrance of former kindness is obliterated), once more repeat these appellations, which are ever grateful to our ears; let us entreat heaven to avert our ruin and the destruction that threat ens our friends, brethren, and countrymen on the other side of the Atlantic. ' ' Rejection op Lord North's Plan of Conciliation Congress referred the conciliatory plan of Lord North to a committee consisting of Dr. Franklin, Thomas 168 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES Jefferson, John Adams, and Richard Henry Lee, and in accordance with their report rejected the plan as un reasonable, insidious, and unsatisfactory. Congress claimed the right of the colonies to give their ovra money to the empire, and to designate how it should be ex pended, and refused to accept the remission of taxes when this was conditioned upon contributions. They also objected to the proposal because it was "borne on the point of the bayonet by military plenipotentiaries." Besides, they said, the British monopolization of colonial trade already laid them "under heavy contribution. ' ' Congress further objected to the "intermeddling" of Parlia ment with the civil government or administration of justice in the colonies. They rejected the plan, also, because it gave no redress of the other grievances of the colonies as presented in the petition of the first Congress, and because Parliament was adding to these by prohibiting the New England fisheries, and by inter dicting intercolonial as well as foreign trade. They went so far as to question the good faith of the propo sition, as intended "to lull into fatal security" the friends of the colonies in Great Britain, while the ministry prepared sud denly to reduce "the 'cowardly' sons of America to unreserved submission," as Lord North had presaged in a former speech, and as the actions of the British Government in Massachusetts and the preparations of armaments of the British Government in Massachusetts and the preparations of armaments for Amer ica indicated was the intention. Therefore, said Congress, "when these things are laid to gether . . . can the world be deceived into an opinion that we are unreasonable, or can it hesitate to believe us, that nothing but our own exertions may defeat the ministerial sentence of death or abject submission?" Congress then proceeded to organize an army for defence. George Washington was unanimously chosen commander-in-chief, which appointment he accepted with his characteristic modesty in the following address to the president: "Though I am truly sensible of the high honor done me in this appointment, yet I feel great distress from a consciousness that my abilities and military experience may not be equal to COLONIES VS. PARLIAMENT 169 the extensive and important trust. However, as the Congress desire it, I will enter upon the momentous duty and exert every power I possess in their service, and for the support of the glorious cause. I beg they will accept my most cordial thanks for this distinguished testimony of their approbation. "But, lest some unlucky event should happen unfavorable to my reputation, I beg it may be remembered by every gentle man in the room that I this day declare with the utmost sin cerity I do not think myself equal to the command I am hon ored with. "As to pay, sir, I beg leave to assure the Congress that, as no pecuniary consideration could have tempted me to accept this arduous employment at the expense of my domestic ease and happiness, I do not wish to make any profit from it. I will keep an exact account of my expenses. These, I doubt not, they will discharge, and that is aU I desire." On the 6th of July Congress declared to the world the causes which led them to take up arms. Declaeation to the Wobld by congress Having stated the various acts of the British Parlia ment in violation of their rights, and the hostile pro ceedings of the Administration to enforce them, they observed : "We are reduced to the alternative of choosing between un conditional submission to the tyranny of irritated ministers or resistance by force. The latter is our choice. We have counted the cost of this contest, and find nothing so dreadful as volun tary slavery. Honor, justice, and humanity forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors; and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which in evitably awaits them if we basely entail hereditary bondage upon them. "Our cause is just — our union is perfect — our internal re sources are great, and, if necessary, foreign assistance is un doubtedly attainable. We gratefully acknowledge, as signal in stances of the divine favor toward us, that His providence would 170 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES not permit us to be called into this severe controversy until we were grown to our present strength, had been previously ex ercised in warlike operations, and possessed of the means of defending ourselves. With hearts fortified with these animating reflections we most solemnly, before God and the world, declare that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers which the beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and persever ance, employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die freemen rather than to live slaves. Lest this declaration shall disquiet the minds of our friends and fel low subjects in any part of the empire, we assure them that we mean not to dissolve that union which has so long and so happily subsisted between us, and which we sincerely wish to see restored. Necessity has not yet driven us to that desperate measure, or induced us to excite any other nation to war against them. We have not raised armies with ambitious designs of separating from Great Britain and establishing independent states. We fight not for glory or for conquest. We exhibit to mankind the remarkable spectacle of a people attacked by unprovoked ene mies without any imputation or even suspicion of offence. They boast of their privileges and civilization, and yet proffer no milder conditions than servitude or death. In our own native land, in defence of the freedom that is our birthright, and which we ever enjoyed till the late violation of it, for the protection of our property, acquired solely by the honest industry of our fore fathers and ourselves, against violence actually offered we have taken up arms. We shall lay them down when hostilities shall cease on the part of the aggressors and all danger of their being renewed, and not before. "With an humble confidence in the mercies of the supreme and impartial judge and ruler of the universe we most devoutly implore His divine goodness to protect us happily through this great conflict, to dispose our adversaries to reconciliation on reasonable terms and thereby relieve the empire from the calam ities of civil war." This was drawn by John Dickinson. On the recommendation of the New York delegates, as instructed by their provincial convention. Congress issued paper currency to be discharged proportionately by the colonies, the united colonies to pay that part which any colony should fail to discharge. COLONIES VS. PARLIAMENT 171 On the first of August Congress adjourned to meet on the fifth of September. The capture of Ticonderoga by Ethan Allen and Benedict Arnold early in May, 1775, the brave defence of Bunker (or Breed's) Hill by the raw New England militia in June, and the investment of the British troops in Boston by General Washington which followed, in fused great hope in the patriots. Acts of Congress At the next meeting of Congress in September dele gates from Georgia were present, and the name of ' ' The JOIN or DIE A common newspaper heading in 1776; devised by Franklin in May, 1754, at the beginning of the French War Thirteen United Colonies" was chosen to designate the country. A national navy was established and authority given to private persons to capture ships of the enemy. The first military movement decided upon was the conquest of Canada. The invading force under Richard Montgomery and Benedict Arnold was repulsed at Quebec with the death of Montgomery. At the request of the people of New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Virginia, Congress advised them in the formation of provisional governments to be termi nated when Great Britain and the colonies should be reconciled. Repressive Acts of Parliament In his speech at the opening of Parliament in October, 1775, the King ignored the petition to him by Congress, and advocated extensive military operations in which 172 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES foreign as well as British troops were to be employed to put down the rebellion which he declared had been undertaken by the colonists for the purpose of establish ing an independent empire. While it was generally agreed by Parliament that the war should be prosecuted vigorously, a lively debate ensued over the employment of mercenaries to destroy people of their own blood. The proposition was carried. The passage of an act to prohibit all trade with the colonies, containing a clause empowering British naval commanders to impress into the King's service captured American seamen and other persons, following as it did the employment of mercenary troops, shut and bolted the door on all prospect of reconciliation. The ablest men in America now began to advocate separation from Great Britain. Many colonials who had taken an active part in opposing the war left the country for Canada or England. ^^ '-^£^0&S^W^. -A, KECEPTION OP THE AMERICAN LOYALISTS BY GREAT BRITAIN From the collection of the New York Historical Society CHAPTER VI Colonies vs. the Crown [speeches and debates on the declaration of inde pendence] The Mecklenburgh [N. C] Declaration of Independence — "Common Sense," by Thomas Paine [Pa.]— Judge WiUiam Henry Drayton's Charge to the Grand Jury of Charleston, S. C. : "America Created to Be Free" — Declaration of Eights by Virginia (drafted by George Mason) — ^Resolu tion of Independence Introduced in Congress by Bichard Henry Lee [Va.] — Thomas Jefferson's Report of the Debate on Lee's Eesolution: in favor, Lee, John Adams [Mass.], George Wythe [Va.] ; opposed, James Wilson [Pa.], Robert E. Livingston [N. Y.], Edward Eutledge [S. C], John Dickinson [Pa.] — ^Daniel Webster's Ee-creation of the De bate: Supposed Speeches of John Hancock [Mass.] and John Adams — Speech of Mr. Lee: "Independence a Solemn Duty" — The Declaration Is Passed. Even while the Congress had been in session a con vention consisting of two delegates from each militia company of Mecklenburgh, N. C, met (on May 20, 1775) at Charlotte, the county seat, and passed certain resolu tions which on their face seem to be a forecast not only of the declarations of the second Congress, but of the Declaration of Independence in July, 1776. A fierce controversy over the authenticity of these resolutions has been waged by American historians, owing to the fact that the original transcript was burned in 1800, and only what purports to be a copy has been preserved. The two significant resolutions are: "Resolved, That we, the citizens of Mecklenburgh county, do hereby dissolve the political bands which have connected us to our mother country and hereby absolve ourselves from aU allegiance to the British Crown, and abjure all political connec tion, contract, or association, with a nation which has wantonly 173 174 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES trampled on our rights and liberties and inhumanly shed the innocent blood of American patriots at Lexington. "Resolved, That we do hereby declare ourselves a free and independent people, are, and of right ought to be, a sovereign and self-governing association, under the control of no power other than that of God and the general Congress ; to the main tenance of which independence we solemnly pledge to each other our mutual cooperation, our lives, our fortunes, and our most sacred honor." Foremost among the writers who advocated inde pendence at this time were Thomas Paine and William Henry Drayton. Paine in January, 1776, at the suggestion of Dr. Benjamin Rush, published a pamphlet "Common Sense," addressed "to the inhabitants of America," and advocating complete independence of the country in a forcible popular style which at once made him a man of note throughout all the colonies. The book, says Dr. Rush, "burst forth with an effect that has rarely been produced by types and paper in any age or country. ' ' In the second article of "Common Sense," entitled "Thoughts on the Present State of American AfEairs," Paine says: It is repugnant to reason, and the universal order of things, to all examples from former ages, to suppose that this continent can longer remain subject to any external power. The most sanguine in Britain do not think so. The utmost stretch of human wisdom cannot, at this time, compass a plan short of sep aration which can promise the continent even a year's security. Reconciliation is now a fallacious dream. Nature hath deserted the connection and art cannot supply her place. For, as Milton wisely expresses, "never can true reconcilement grow where wounds of deadly hate have pierced so deep." Every quiet method for peace hath been ineffectual. Our prayers have been rejected with disdain, and only tended to con vince us that nothing flatters vanity or confirms obstinacy in kings more than repeated petitioning. Wherefore, since nothing but blows will do, for God 's sake let us come to a final separation, and not leave the next generation to be cutting throats under the violated unmeaning names of parent and child. COLONIES VS. CROWN 175 A government of our own is our natural right ; and when a man seriously reflects on the precariousness of human affairs he will become convinced that it is infinitely wiser and safer to form a constitution of our own in a cool, deliberate manner, while we have it in our power, than to trust such an interesting event to time and chance. If we omit it now some Masaniello may hereafter arise, who, lasdng hold of popular disquietudes, may collect together the desperate and the discontented, and, by as suming to themselves the powers of government, finally sweep away the liberties of the continent like a deluge. Ye that oppose independence now, ye know not what ye do; ye are opening a door to eternal tyranny by keeping vacant the seat of govern ment. 0 ye that love mankind ! Ye that dare oppose, not only the tyranny, but the tyrant, stand forth! Every spot of the old world is overrun with oppression. Freedom hath been hunted round the globe. Asia and Africa have long expelled her. Europe regards her like a stranger, and England hath given her warning to depart. Oh, receive the fugitive, and prepare in time an asylum for mankind. In the last article of the pamphlet, ' ' On The Present Ability of America," after discussing the military and financial power of the united colonies, Paine says in conclusion : Youth is the seed-time of good habits, as well in nations as in individuals. It might be difficult, if not impossible, to form the continent into one government half a century hence. The vast variety of interests occasioned by an increase of trade and population would create confusion. Colony would be against colony. Each being able might scorn each other's assistance; and, while the proud and foolish gloried in their little distinc tions, the wise would lament that the union had not been formed before. Wherefore the present time is the true time for estab lishing it. The intimacy which is contracted in infancy and the friendship which is formed in misfortune are, of all others, the most lasting and unalterable. Our present union is marked with both these characters : we are young, and we have been dis tressed ; but our concord hath withstood our troubles and fixes a memorable era for posterity to glory in. The present time, likewise, is that peculiar time which never happens to a nation but once, viz., the time of forming itself into a government. Most nations have let slip the opportunity, and. 176 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES by that means, have been compelled to receive laws from their conquerors instead of making laws for themselves. First they had a king, and then a form of government ; whereas the articles or charter of government should be formed first and men dele gated to execute them afterward; but from the errors of other nations let us learn wisdom and lay hold of the present oppor tunity — to begin government at the right end. In an appendix to the pamphlet Paine declares: ' ' He who takes nature for his guide is not easily beaten out of his argument, and on that ground I answer generally. That independence being a single simple line, contained within our selves, and reconciliation a matter exceedingly perplexed and complicated, and in which a treacherous, capricious court is to interfere, gives the answer without a doubt." "Wherefore," concludes Paine, "instead of gazing at each other with suspicious or doubtful curiosity, let each of us hold out to his neighbor the hearty hand of friendship, and unite in drawing a line which, like an act of oblivion, shall bury in forgetfulness every former dissension. Let the names of Whig and Tory be extinct, and let none other be heard among us than those of a good citizen, an open and resolute friend, and a vir tuous supporter of the rights of mankind, and of the free and independent States op America. ' ' Another early advocate of entire separation from Great Britain was William Henry Drayton, Chief- Justice of South Carolina. On the 23rd of April, 1776, he delivered a notable address to the grand jury of Charleston upon the adoption of the new State Con stitution, in which he foreshadowed the Declaration of Independence by his enumeration of the acts of the King and Parliament which justified the separation of the colonies from the British empire. America Created to Be Free judge william heney drayton Gentlemen of the Grand Jury : When, by evil machinations tending to nothing less than absolute tyranny, trials by jury have been discontinued, and juries, in discharge of their duty, have assembled, and, as soon as met, as silently and arbitrarily COLONIES VS. CROWN 177 dismissed without being impaneled, whereby, in contempt of Magna Charta, justice has been delayed and denied; it cannot but afford to every good citizen the most sincere satisfaction once more to see juries, as they now are, legally impaneled, to the end that the laws may be duly administered — I do most heartily congratulate you upon so important an event. In this court, where silence has but too long presided, with a direct purpose to loosen the bands of government that this country might be involved in anarchy and confusion, you are now met to regulate your verdicts under a new constitution of government independent of royal authority — a constitution which arose according to the great law of nature and of nations, and which was established in the late congress, on the 26th of March last. After enumerating the various oppressive acts of Parliament which had led to the revolution of the colonial government, he continued: These acts have, either immediately or in their evident con sequences, deeply affected all the colonies: ruin stared them in the face. They united their counsels and laid their just com plaints before the Throne, praying a redress of grievances. But, to their astonishment, their dutiful petition for peace and safety was answered only by an actual commencement of war and mili tary destruction! In the mean time the British troops that had been peaceably received by the devoted inhabitants of Boston, as the troops of their sovereign, bound to protect them! fortified that town, to imprison the inhabitants and to hold that capital against the people to whom it belonged! And the British rulers having determined to appeal from reason and justice to violence and arms, a select body of those troops being in the night suddenly and privately marched from Boston — at Lexington, on the 19th day of April, 1775, they, by surprise, drew the sword of civil war and plunged it into the breasts of the Americans ! Against this horrid injustice the Almighty gave instant judgment: a handful of country militia, badly armed, suddenly collected, and, unconnectedly and irregularly brought up to repel the attack, discomfited the regular bands of the tyranny; they retreated, and night saved them from total slaughter. Thus forced to take up arms in our own defence, America yet again most dutifully petitioned the King, that he would be pleased "to direct some mode by which the united applications 178 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES of his faithful colonists to the throne, in presence of their com mon councils, might be improved into a happy and permanent reconciliation; and that, in the meantime, measures might be taken for preventing the further destruction of the lives of His Majesty's subjects." But it was in vain! The petition on the part of millions, praying that the effusion of blood might be STAYED, was not thought worthy of an answer ! The nefarious war continued. The ruins of Charlestown, Falmouth, and Nor folk, towns not constructed for offence or defence, mark the humane progress of the royal arms: so the ruins of Carthage, Corinth, and Numantium proclaimed to the world that justice was expelled the Roman senate! On the other hand, the fortitude with which America has endured these civil and mili tary outrages ; the union of her people, as astonishing as unprece dented, when we consider their various manners and religious tenets; their distance from each other; their various and clash ing local interests ; their self-denial ; and their miraculous success in the prosecution of the war : I say, these things all demonstrate that the Lord of Hosts is on our side ! So it is apparent that the Almighty Constructor of the universe, having formed this con tinent of materials to compose a state preeminent in the world, is now making use of the tyranny of the British rulers, as an instru ment to fashion and arrange those materials for the end for which, in His wisdom, he had formed them. In this enlightened age humanity must be particularly shocked at a recital of such violences; and it is scarce to be be lieved, that the British tyranny could entertain an idea of pro ceeding against America by a train of more dishonorable machin ations. But, nothing less than absolute proof has convinced us that, in carrying on the conspiracy against the rights of human ity, the tyranny is capable of attempting to perpetrate whatever is infamous. For the little purpose of disarming the imprisoned inhabi tants of Boston, the King's general. Gage, in the face of day, violated the public faith, by himself plighted, and, in concert with other governors, and with John Stuart,^ he made every attempt to instigate the savage nations to war upon the southern colonies, indiscriminately to massacre man, woman, and child. The governors in general have demonstrated that truth is not in them; they have enveigled negroes from, and have armed them against, their masters; they have armed brother against brother — son against father ! Oh ! Almighty Director of the uni verse! what confidence can be put in a government ruling by See Dr. David Ramsay's "History of South Carolina." COLONIES r^. CROWN 179 such engines, and upon such principles of unnatural destruction ! —a government that, upon the 21st day of December last, made a law, ex post facto, to justify what had been done, not only without law, but in its nature unjust 1 — a law to make prize of all vessels tradiug in, to, or from the united colonies — a law to make slaves of the crews of such vessels, and to compel them to bear arms against their conscience, their fathers, their bleeding country ! The world, so old as it is, heretofore had never heard of so atrocious a procedure : it has no parallel in the registers of tyranny. . . . For this only end the house of Brunswick was called to rule over us. Oh! agonizing reflection! that house ruled us with swords, fixe, and bayonets! The British government operated only to our destruction. Nature cried aloud, self-preservation is the great law — we have but obeyed. You have now a form of government in every respect pre ferable to the mode under the British authority: and this will most clearly appear by contrasting the two forms of govern ment. Under the British authority governors were sent over to us who were utterly unacquainted with our local interests, the genius of the people, and our laws ; generally, they were but too much disposed to obey the mandates of an arbitrary ministry; and, if the governor behaved ill, we could not by any peaceable means procure redress. But, under our present happy consti tution, our executive magistrate arises according to the spirit and letter of holy writ — "their governors shall proceed from the midst of them." Thus the people have an opportunity of choos ing a man intimately acquainted with their true interests, their genius, and their laws ; a man perfectly disposed to defend them against arbitrary miuisters, and to promote the happiness of that people from among whom he was elevated, and by whom, without the least difficulty, he may be removed and blended in the common mass. Again, under the British authority it was in effect declared, that we had no property; nay, that we could not possess any; and that we had not any of the rights of humanity. For men who knew us not, men who gained in proportion as we lost, arrogated to themselves a right to BIND us in all cases what soever! But our constitution is calculated to FREE us from foreign bondage; to secure to us our property; to maintain to us the rights of humanity ; and to defend us and our posterity against British authority aiming to reduce us to the most abject slavery ! 180 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES Again, the British authority declared that we should not erect slitting mills; and to this unjust law we implicitly and respectfully submitted, so long as, with safety to our lives, we could yield obedience to such authority; but a resolution of congress now grants a premium to encourage the construction of such mills. The British authority discouraged our attempt ing to manufacture for our own consumption ; but the new con stitution, by authorizing the disbursement of large sums of money by way of loan or premium, encourages the making of iron, bar-steel, nail-rods, gun-locks, gun-barrels, sulphur, niter, gunpowder, lead, woolens, cottons, linens, paper, and salt. Upon the whole, it has been the policy of the British author ity to oblige us to supply our wants at their market, which is the dearest in the known world, and to cramp and confine our trade so as to be subservient to their commerce, our real interest being ever out of the question. On the other hand, the new consti tution is wisely adapted to enable us to trade with foreign na tions, and thereby to supply our wants at the cheapest markets in the universe; to extend our trade infinitely beyond what it has ever been known ; to encourage manufactures among us ; and it is peculiarly formed to promote the happiness of the people, from among whom, by virtue and merit, the poorest man may arrive at the highest dignity. Oh, Carolinians ! happy would you be under this new constitution, if you knew your happy state. Possessed of a constitution of government founded upon so generous, equal, and natural a principle — a government ex pressly calculated to make the people rich, powerful, virtuous and happy, who can wish to change it, to return under a royal government, the vital principles of which are the reverse in every particular ! It was my duty to lay this happy constitution before you in its genuine light: it is your duty to understand, to instruct others, and to defend it. I might here with propriety quit this truly important sub ject, but my anxiety for the public weal compels me yet to detain your attention, while I make an observation or two upon one particular part of the constitution. When all the various attempts to enslave America by fraud, under guise of law; by military threats; by famine, massacre, breach of public faith, and open war are considered on the one hand, and, on the other, the constitution, expressing that some mode of government should be established ' ' until an accommoda tion of the unhappy differences between Great Britain and America can be obtained ; an event which, though traduced and COLONIES VS. CROWN 181 treated as rebels, we still ardently desire, ' ' I say, when these two points are contrasted, can we avoid revering the magnanimity of that great council of the state, who, after such injuries, could entertain such a principle ! But the virtuous are ever generous. We do not wish revenge: we earnestly wish an accommodation of our unhappy disputes with Great Britain ; for we prefer peace to war. Nay, there may be even such an accommodation as, excluding every idea of revenue by taxation or duty, or of legis lation by act of Parliaments, may vest the king of Great Britain with such a limited dominion over us as may tend, bona fide, to promote our true commercial interests, and to secure our free dom and safety — the only just ends of any dominion. But, while I declare thus much on the one side, on the other it is my duty also to declare that, in my opinion, our true commercial interests cannot be provided for but by such a material alteration of the British acts of navigation as, according to the resolve of the hon orable the Continental Congress, will "secure the commercial advantages of the whole empire to the mother country, and the commercial benefits of its respective members." And that our liberties and safety cannot be depended upon, if the king of Great Britain should be allowed to hold our forts and cannon, or to have authority over a single regiment in America, or a sin gle ship of war in our ports. For, if he holds our forts, he may turn them against us, as he did Boston against her proprietors ; if he acquires our cannon he will effectually disarm the colony; if he has a command of troops among us, even if we raise and pay them, shackles are fixed upon us — witness Ireland and her national army. The most express act of Parliament cannot give us security, for acts of Parliament are as easily repealed as made. Royal proclamations are not to be depended upon, witness the disappointments of the inhabitants of Quebec and St. Augustine. Even a change of ministry will not avail us, because, notwith standing the rapid succession of ministers for which the British court has been famous during the present reign, yet the same ruinous policy ever continued to prevail against America. In short, I think it my duty to declare, in the awful seat of justice and before Almighty God, that, in my opinion, the Americans can have no safety but by the Divine favor, their own virtue, and their being so prudent as not to leave it in the power op THE British rulers to injure them. Indeed, the ruinous and deadly injuries received on our side, and the jealousies enter tained, and which, in the nature of things, must daily increase against us, on the other, demonstrate to a mind in the least given to reflection upon the rise and fall of empires, that true recon- 182 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES cilement never can exist between Great Britain and America, the latter being in subjection to the former. The Almighty created America to be independent of Britain. Let us beware of the impiety of being backward to act as instruments in the almighty hand, now extended to accomplish His purpose, and by the completion of which alone America, in the nature of human affairs, can be secure against the craft and insidious designs of her enemies, who think her prosperity and power ALREADY BY FAR TOO GREAT. In a word, our piety and political safety are sO blended that, to refuse our labors in this Divine work, is to refuse to be a great, a free, a pious, and a happy people ! And now, having left the important alternative, political happiness or wretchedness, under God, in a great degree in your own hands, I pray the Supreme Arbiter of the affairs of men so to direct your judgment, as that you may act agreeable to what seems to be His will revealed in His miraculous works in behalf of America, bleeding at the altar of liberty! Colonial Declarations of Independence When the prohibitory act of Parliament reached America, Congress, viewing it as a declaration of war, directed that reprisals be made, both by public and private armed vessels against the ships and goods of the inhabitants of Great Britain found on the high seas, and that American ports be opened to all the world except the dominions of Great Britain. On May 10 Congress recommended to the assemblies, and where no suflacient government had been established to the con ventions of the colonies, "to adopt such government as should, 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." This was a preliminary step to a general declara tion of independence. Some of the colonial assemblies had already ex pressed their opinions on this question; the convention of North Carolina having empowered their delegates in Congress "to concur with those in the other colonies in declaring independency." This was the first direct public act of any colonial assembly or convention in 184 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES favor of the measure. On the 15th of May the conven tion of Virginia went still farther and unanimously instructed their delegates in the general Congress to propose independence. On June 12, 1776, the Virginia convention, still in session, passed a Declaration of Rights, which antici pated the Declaration of Independence in its enuncia tion of natural rights and was even more explicit as to the principles of democratic government. It was drafted by George Mason. Virginia Bill of Rights A declaration of rights made by the representatives of the good people of Virginia, assembled in full and free convention; which rights do pertain to them and their posterity as the basis and foundation of government. Section 1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing prop erty, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. Sec. 2. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and serv ants, and at all times amenable to them. Sec. 3. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common beneflt, protection, and security of the people, na tion, or community ; of all the various modes and forms of gov ernment, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these pur poses, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalien able, and indefensible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal. Sec. 4. That no man, or set of men, are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services ; which, not being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge to be hereditary. Sec. 5; That the legislative and executive powers of the COLONIES r^. CROWN 185 State should be separate and distinct from the judiciary,^ and that the membei-s of the two first may be restrained from oppres sion, by feeling and participating the burdens of the people they should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station, return iuto that body from which they were originally taken, and the vacancies be supplied by frequent, certain, and regular elec tions, in which all or any part of the former members to be again eligible or ineligible, as the laws shall direct. Sec. 6. That elections of members to serve as representa tives of the people, in assembly, ought to be free; and that all men having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, tlie community have the right of suf frage, and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses, without their own consent or that of their repre sentatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, asseuted for the public good. See. 7. That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority without consent of the representatives of the people, is injurious to their rights and ought not to be exercised. Sec. S. That in all capital or criminal prosecutions a man hath a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for evi dence in his favor, and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of twelve men of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he can not be found guilty : nor can he be compelled to give evi dence against himself; that no man be deprived of his liberty, except by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers. See. 9. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments in flicted. See. 10. That general warrants, whereby an officer or mes senger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fault committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offence is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive, and ought not to be granted. 'Tn the constitution adopted June '29, 1776. by the convention that is sued this bill of riirhTs, it is provided that ' " The legislative, executive, and jndiciarr department shall l)e sV-n^-> '_5TJj •- h^ A PICTUKESQUE VIEW OP THE STATE OP THE NATION [For February, 1778.] 220 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES do so would result in the greatest humiliation of her history. The French Alliance The essential and direct end of the French- American alliance was "to maintain the liberty, sovereignty, and independence, absolute and unlimited, of the United States, as well in matters of government as of com- rce." To this treaty there was annexed a secret article, that the King of Spain (who was the uncle of Louis XVI, and had already secretly contributed supplies to Amer ica) might join the alliance at such time as he should judge it proper to do so. Great Britain was greatly alarmed by the alliance between her ancient enemy France and the revolted col onies. Charles James Fox took this occasion to advo cate coming to terms with America. Folly or the American War CHARLES JAMES FOX You have now two wars before you, of which you must choose one, for both you cannot support. The war against America has hitherto been carried on against her alone, unassisted by any ally whatever. Notwithstanding she stood alone, you have been obliged, uniformly, to increase your exertions and to push your efforts to the extent of your power without being able to bring it to an issue. You have exerted all your force hitherto with out effect, and you cannot now divide a force found already inadequate to its object. My opinion is for withdrawing your forces from America entirely, for a defensive war you can never think of there. A defensive war would ruin this nation at any time, and, in any circumstances, offensive war is pointed out as proper for this country. Our situation points it out, and the spirit of the nation impels us to attack rather than defend. Attack Prance, then, for she is our object. The nature of these wars is differ ent. The war against America is against our own countrymen ; you have stopped me from saying against your fellow-subjects. That against France is against an inveterate foe and rival. Every blow you strike in America is against yourselves. It is REVOLUTION OR REBELLION? 221 against all idea of reconciliation, and against your own interest, even though you should be able, as you never will be, to force them to submit. Every stroke against France is of advantage to you. America must be conquered in France. France never can be conquered in America. The war of the Americans is a war of passion. It is of such a nature as to be supported by the most powerful virtues — love of liberty and love of country — and at the same time by those passions in the human heart which give courage, strength, and perseverance to man — the spirit of revenge for the injuries you have done them, of retaliation for the hardships you have in flicted on them, and of opposition to the unjust powers you have exercised over them. Everything combines to animate them to this war; and such a war is without end. Whether it be called obstinacy or enthusiasm, under the name of religion or liberty, the effects are the same. It inspires a spirit which is uncon querable, solicitous to undergo difficulty, danger, and hardship. So long as there is a man in America — a being formed as we are — so long will he present himself against you in the field. What has become of the ancient spirit of this people ? Where is the national spirit that ever did honor to this country ? In accordance with Fox's appeal, or perhaps notwith standing it, for he had the faculty of arousing antago nism to his propositions, Parliament, on February 17, 1778, passed acts removing the tax on tea, restoring the charter of Massachusetts, and appointing a commission to ' ' treat, consult, and agree upon the means of quieting the disorders" in the colonies, and to declare an armis tice pending negotiations. These acts were transmitted to General Washington in April, and by him submitted to Congress. Congress referred them to a committee, and, in pursuance of its report, refused to consider them unless Great Britain either withdrew her fleets and armies, or recognized the independence of the United States. At last the common people of Great Britain became thoroughly aroused against the further prosecution of the war with America. Their tribune, John Wilkes, voiced their sentiments in a speech on the King's Ad dress at the opening of Parliament in 1780. JOHN WILKES, ESQ. Drawn by William Hogarth 222 REVOLUTION OR REBELLION? 223 Eevolution, Not Eebellion speech of john wilkes on the american war Mb. Speaker — It ill becomes the duty and dignity of Parlia ment to lose itself in such a fulsome adulatory address to the throne as that now proposed. We ought rather to approach it with sound and wholesome advice, and even with remonstrances against the ministers who have precipitated the British nation into an unjust, ruinous, murderous, and felonious war. I call the war with our brethren in America an unjust and felonious war, because the primary cause and confessed origin of it is to attempt to take their money from them without their consent, contrary to the common rights of all mankind and to those great fundamental principles of the English constitution for which Hampden bled. I assert that it is a murderous war, because it is an effort to deprive men of their lives for standing up in the defence of their property and their clear rights. Such a war, I fear, vdll draw down the vengeance of heaven upon this king dom. Sir, is any minister weak enough to flatter himself with the conquest of America? You cannot, with all your allies, with all the mercenary ruffians of the North, you cannot effect so wicked a purpose! The Americans will dispute every inch of territory with you, every narrow pass, every strong defile, every Thermopylae, every Bunker Hill ! More than half the empire is already lost, and almost all the rest is in confusion and anarchy. We have appealed to the sword, and what have we gained? Are we to pay as dear for the rest of America ? The idea of the conquest of that immense country is as romantic as it is unjust. But "the Americans have been treated with lenity!" Will facts justify the assertion? Was your Boston "Port BiU" a measure of lenity? Was your Fishery Bill a measure of lenity? Was your bill for taking away the charter of Massachusetts a measure of lenity ? I omit your many other gross provocations and insults by which the brave Americans have been driven to their present state. Whether that state is one of rebellion or of fit resistance to imlawful acts of power I shall not declare. This I know: a successful resistance is revolution, not a rebellion. Rebellion, indeed, appears on the back of a fiying enemy, but revolution flames on the breastplate of the victorious warrior. Who can tell whether, in consequence of this day's action, the scabbard may not be thrown away by them as well as by us, and, should success attend them, whether in a few years the in- 224 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES dependent American may not celebrate the glorious era of the Revolution of 1775 as we do that of 1688 ? Eejection of British Proposals Congress presented an inspiriting address to the country, instancing the peace proposals of Great Britain as evidence of her despair, though also of her rage, and warning the people not to relax their efforts for inde pendence. It was written by Samuel Chase : "Be Not Deceived" Be not . . . deceived. You have still to expect one se vere conflict. Your foreign alliances, though they secure your independence, cannot secure your country from desolation, your habitations from plunder, your wives from insult or violation, nor your children from butchery. Foiled in their principal de sign, you must expect to feel the rage of disappointed ambition. Arise, then! to your tents! and gird you for battle. It is time to turn the headlong current of vengeance upon the head of the destroyer. . . . They have filled up the measure of their abominations, and like ripe fruit must soon drop from the tree. Although much is done, yet much remains to do. Expect not peace, while any corner of America is in possession of your foes. You must drive them away from this land of promise, a land flowing indeed with milk and honey. . . . For surely there is no man so absurd as to suppose that the least shadow of lib erty can be preserved in a dependent connection with Great Britain. From the nature of the thing it is evident that the only security you could obtain would be the justice and moderation of a Parliament who have sold the rights of their own con stituents. And this slender security is still farther weakened by the consideration that it was pledged to rebels (as they un justly call the good people of these States) with whom they think they are not bound to keep faith by any law whatsoever. Thus would you be cast bound among men, whose minds, by your virtuous resistance, have been sharpened to the keenest edge of revenge. Thus would your children and your children's chil dren be by you forced to a participation of all their debts, their wars, their luxuries, and their crimes. And this mad, this im pious system they would lead you to adopt, because of the de rangement of your finances. It becomes you deeply to reflect on this subject. Is there REVOLUTION OR REBELLION? 225 a country upon earth which hath such resources for the payment of her debts as America 1 such an extensive territory ? so fertile, so blessed in its climate and productions? surely there is none. Neither is there any, to which the wise Europeans will sooner confide their property. What, then, are the reasons that your money hath depreciated? because no taxes have been imposed to carry on the war. Because your commerce hath been inter rupted by your enemy's fieets. Because their armies have rav aged and desolated a part of your country. Because their agents have villainously counterfeited your bills. Because extor tioners among you, inflamed with the lust of gain, have added to the price of every article of life. And because weak men have been artfully led to believe that it is of no value. How is this dangerous disease to be remedied? let those among you who have leisure and opportunity collect the moneys which individ uals in their neighborhood are desirous of placing in the public fimds. Let the several legislatures sink their respective emis sions, that so, there being but one kind of bills, there may be less danger of counterfeits. Refrain a little while from purchasing those things which are not absolutely necessary, that so those who have engrossed commodities may suffer (as they deservedly will) the loss of their ill-begotten hoards, by reason of the commerce with foreign nations, which the fleets will protect. Above all, bring forward your armies into the field. Trust not to appear ances of peace or safety. Be assured that, unless you persevere, you will be exposed to every species of barbarity. But if you exert the means of defence which God and nature have given you, the time will soon arrive when every man shall sit under his own vine, and under his own fig-tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. The sweets of a free commerce with every part of the earth will soon reimburse you for all the losses you have sustained. The full tide of wealth will flow in upon your shores, free from the arbitrary impositions of those whose interest and whose de clared policy it was to check your growth. Your interests will be fostered and nourished by governments that derive their power from your grant, and will therefore be obliged, by the influence of cogent necessity, to exert it in your favor. It is to obtain these things that we call your strenuous, unremitted exer tions. Yet do not believe that you have been, or can be, saved merely by your own strength. No! it is by the assistance of heaven, and this you must assiduously cultivate, by acts which heaven approves. Thus shall the power and the happiness of these sovereign, free, and independent states, founded on the 226 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES virtue of their citizens, increase, extend, and endure until the Almighty shall blot out all the empires of the earth. The peace commissioners sent by Parliament to America could not believe that Congress had been sin cere in its refusal even to consider their proposals, and so renewed them. When Congress adhered to its former conditions, the commissioners then addressed their pro posals to the colonial assemblies and the "free inhab itants of this once happy empire"; and offered pardon to all who should, within forty days, desert the American cause. They circulated this offer among the soldiers by means of flags of truce. Congress declared that these actions were violations of international law, and recommended the state au thorities to seize the commissioners. Triumph op American Arms While General Nathaniel Greene was conducting his successful campaign in the South, the allied French and American forces under Washington and Eochambeau compelled the surrender of Lord Cornwallis at York- town on October 19, 1781. This brilliant achievement put an end to military operations in America. Parliament's Peace Proposals In the meantime a congress of the belligerent nations was to be held at Vienna to negotiate for the reestab- lishment of peace. But the American minister, John Adams, utterly refused to appear at the congress except as the representative of an independent nation. In this position he was upheld by France, whereupon Great Britain, in September, 1781, refused to accept the media tion of the powers, and thus put an end to the proposal. Parliament met on the 27th of November, 1781, and, though the speech from the throne still breathed a spirit of hostility, and answers from both Houses were pro cured, in accordance with it, yet not long after the re cess, the ministers found themselves in a minority in the House of Commons. On the 22d of February, 1782, General Conway in the House moved an Address to the REVOLUTION OR REBELLION? 227 King, praying "that the war on the continent of North America might no longer be pursued for the imprac ticable purpose of reducing that country to obedience by force," and expressing their hope, "that the earnest de sire and diligent exertion to restore the public tran quillity, of which they had received His Majesty's most gracious assurances, might, by a happy reconciliation with the revolted colonies, be forwarded and made ef fectual; to which great end, His Majesty's faithful Com mons would be ready to give their utmost assistance. ' ' This motion, being lost by a single vote only, was five days after renewed, by the same gentleman in a some what different form, and carried, whereupon the minis try resigned, in accordance with that precedent of Par liament which demands a change of government when the ministry is defeated on an important measure. In the new administration the Marquis of Eocking- ham was placed at the head of the treasury, and the Earl of Shelburne and Mr. Fox held the important places of secretaries of state. This administration entered into negotiations in regard to peace with the French court and Dr. Franklin. Franklin summoned to his aid John Jay from Madrid. While the majority of the British cabinet, including the prime minister, were determined to "offer America unlimited, unconditional independence," the Earl of Shelburne was opposed to it as the last measure to which the King would assent. When, on the death of the Mar quis of Eockingham, Lord Shelburne was appointed first lord of the treasury, there was an open rupture in the cabinet. Fox and others resigning. William Jones (afterward Sir William Jones) was sent to Paris to sound Franklin on securing peace short of an express acknowledgment of American independ ence. On his return he confessed himself defeated in this purpose. "The sturdy trans-atlantic yeomanry," he said, "will neither be dragooned nor bamboozled out of their liberty." In regard to the policy of Lord Shelburne, Thomas Paine wrote the fourteenth of his papers in "The Crisis." 228 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES WHA WANTS ME? 'I am Ready & Willing to offer my Services to any Nation or People under heaven who are Desirous of Liberty & Equality." — Vide Paine 's Letter to the [French] Convention A British cartoon published December Z6, 179i "The Setting Sun of England" LETTER TO THE EARL OP SHELBURNB BY THOMAS PAINE My Lord — A speech, which has been printed in several of the British and New York newspapers as coming from Your Lord ship, in answer to one from the Duke of Richmond of the tenth of July last, contains expressions and opinions so new and singu lar, and so enveloped in mysterious reasoning, that I address REVOLUTION OR REBELLION? 229 this publication to you for the purpose of giving them a free and candid examination. The speech that I allude to is in these words : "His Lordship said it had been mentioned in another place that he had been guilty of inconsistency. To clear himself of this he asserted that he still held the same principles in respect to American independence which he at first imbibed. He had been, and yet was, of opinion that whenever the Parliament of Great Britain acknowledges that point, the sun of England 's glory is set forever. Such were the sentiments he possessed on a former day, and such the sentiments he continued to hold at this hour. It was the opinion of Lord Chatham, as well as many other able statesmen. "Other notable Lords, however, think differently; and, as the majority of the cabinet support them, he acquiesced in the measure, dissenting from the idea; and the point is settled for bringing the matter into the full discussion of Parliament, where it will be candidly, fairly, and impartially debated. The inde pendence of America would end in the ruin of England; and that a peace patched up with Prance would give that proud enemy the means of yet trampling on this country. "The sun of England's glory he wished not to see set for ever; he looked for a spark at least to be left, which might in time light us up to a new day. But if independence was to be granted, if Parliament deemed that measure prudent, he fore saw, in his own mind, that England was undone. He wished to God that he had been deputed to Congress, that he might plead the cause of that country as well as of this, and that he might exercise whatever powers he possessed as an orator to save both from ruin, by striving to convince Congress that if their inde pendence was signed their liberties were gone forever. "Peace, His Lordship added, was a desirable object, but it must be an honorable peace and not a humiliating one, dictated by Prance or insisted on by America. It was very true that this kingdom was not in a flourishing state ; it was impoverished by war. But if we were not rich, it was evident that France was poor. If we were straitened in our finances, the enemy were exhausted in their resources. ' ' This was a great empire ; it abounded with brave men who were able and willing to fight in a common cause ; the language of humiliation should not, therefore, be the language of Great Britain. His Lordship said that he was not afraid nor ashamed of those expressions going to America. There were numbers, great numbers, there who were of the same way of thinking in 230 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES respect to that country being dependent on this and who, with His Lordship, perceived ruin and independence linked together. ' ' Thus far the speech ; on which I remark : That His Lordship is a total stranger to the mind and sentiments of America ; that he has wrapped himself up in a fond delusion that something less than independence may, under his administration, be accepted; and he wishes himself sent to Congress to prove the most ex traordinary of all doctrines, which is, that independence, the sublimest of all human conditions, is loss of liberty. In answer to which we may say that, in order to know what the contrary word dependence means, we have only to look back to those years of severe humiliation, when the mildest of all petitions could obtain no other notice than the haughtiest of all insults; and when the base terms of unconditional submission were demanded, or undistinguishable destruction threatened. It is nothing to us that the ministry have been changed, for they may be changed again. The guilt of a government is the crime of a whole country; and the nation that can, though but for a moment, think and act as England has done can never afterward be believed or trusted. There are cases in which it is as impossible to restore character to life as it is to recover the dead. It is a phcenix that can expire but once, and from whose ashes there is no resurrection. Some offenses are of such a slight composition that they reach no further than the temper, and are created or cured by a thought. But the sin of England has struck the heart of America, and nature has not left it in our power to say we can forgive. Your Lordship wishes for an opportunity to plead before Congress the cause of England and America, and to save, as you say, both from ruin. That the country which, for more than seven years, has sought our destruction should now cringe to solicit our protec tion is adding the wretchedness of disgrace to the misery of dis appointment; and if England has the least spark of supposed honor left that spark must be darkened by asking, and extin guished by receiving, the smallest favor from America ; for the criminal who owes his life to the grace and mercy of the injured is more executed by living that he who dies. But a thousand pleadings, even from Your Lordship, can have no effect. Honor, interest, and every sensation of the heart would plead against you. We are a people who think not as you think; and, what is equally true, you cannot feel as we feel. The situations of the two countries are exceedingly different. REVOLUTION OR REBELLION? 231 Ours has been the seat of war ; yours has seen nothing of it. The most wanton destruction has been committed in our sight ; the most insolent barbarity has been acted on our feelings. We can look round and see the remains of burned and destroyed houses, once the fair fruit of hard industry, and now the strik ing monuments of British brutality. We walk over the dead whom we loved, in every part of America, and remember by whom they fell. There is scarcely a village but brings to life some melancholy thought, and reminds us of what we have suffered, and those we have lost by the inhumanity of Britain. A thousand images arise to us, which, from situation, you cannot see, and are ac companied by as many ideas which you cannot know ; and there fore your supposed system of reasoning would apply to nothing, and all your expectations die of themselves. The question whether England shall accede to the inde pendence of America, and which Your Lordship says is to undergo a Parliamentary discussion, is so very simple, and com posed of so few cases, that it scarcely needs a debate. It is the only way out of an expensive and ruinous war, which has no object, and without which acknowledgment there can be no peace. But Your Lordship says, "the sun of Great Britain will set whenever she acknowledges the independence of America" — whereas the metaphor would have been strictly just to have left the sun wholly out of the figure, and have ascribed her not acknowledging it to the influence of the moon. But the expression, if true, is the greatest confession of dis grace that could be made, and furnishes America with the high est notions of sovereign independent importance. Mr. Wedderbume, about the year 1776, made use of an idea of much the same kind — "Relinquish America!" says he — "What is it hut to desire a giant to shrink spontaneously into a dwarf." Alas! are those people, who caU themselves Englishmen, of so little internal consequence that when America is gone or shuts her eyes upon them, their sun is set, they can shine no more, but grope about in obscurity, and contract into insignificant animals ? Was America, then, the giant of the empire, and England only her dwarf in waiting ? Is the case so extremely altered that those who once thought we could not live without them are now brought to declare that they cannot exist without us ? WiU they teU to the world, and that from their first minister 232 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES of state, that America is their all in all ; that it is by her impor tance only they can live, and breathe, and have a being? Will they, who long since threatened to bring us to their feet, bow themselves at ours, and own that without us they are not a nation? Are they become so unqualified to debate on indepen dence that they have lost all idea of it themselves, and are calling to the rocks and mountains of America to cover their insignifi cance ? Or, if America is lost, is it manly to sob over it like a child for its rattle, and invite the laughter of the world by declara tions of disgrace ? Surely the more consistent conduct would be to bear it without complaint ; and to show that England, without America, can preserve her independence and a suitable rank with other European powers. You were not contented while you had her, and to weep for her now is childish. But Lord Shelburne thinks something may yet be done. What that something is, or how it is to be accomplished, is a matter in obscurity. By arms there is no hope. The experience of nearly eight years, with the expense of £100,000,000 sterling and the loss of two armies, must positively decide that point. Besides, the British have lost their interest in America with the disaffected. Every part of it has been tried. There is no new scene left for delusion; and the thousands who have been ruined by adhering to them, and have now to quit the settlements they had acquired, and be conveyed like transports to cultivate the deserts of Augustine and Nova Scotia, has put an end to all further expectations of aid. If you cast your eyes on the people of England, what have they to console themselves with for the millions expended? Or what encouragement is there left to continue throwing good money after bad ? America can carry on the war for ten years longer, and all the charges of government included, for less than you can defray the charges of war and government for one year. And I, who know both countries, know well that the people of America can afford to pay their share of the expense much better than the people of England can. Besides, it is their own estates and property, their own rights, liberties, and government they are defending. The British army in America care not how long the war lasts. They enjoy an easy and indolent life. They fatten on the folly of one country and the spoils of another; and, between their plunder and their pay, may go home rich. But the case is very different with the laboring farmer, the working tradesman, and the necessitous poor in England, the REVOLUTION OR REBELLION? 233 sweat of whose brow goes day after day to feed, in prodigality and sloth, the army that is robbing both them and us. Removed from the eye of the country that supports them, and distant from the government that employs them, they cut and carve for them selves, and there is none to call them to account. But England will be ruined, says Lord Shelburne, if America is independent. Then, I say, is England already ruined, for America is al ready independent; and if Lord Shelburne will not allow this, he immediately denies the fact which he infers. Besides, to make England the mere creature of America is paying too great a compliment to us, and too little to himself. But the declaration is a rhapsody of inconsistency. For to say, as Lord Shelburne has numberless times said, that the war against America is ruinous, and yet to continue the prosecution of that ruinous war for the purpose of avoiding ruin, is a lan guage which cannot be understood. Neither is it possible to see how the independence of America is to accomplish the ruin of England after the war is over, and yet not effect it before. America cannot be more independent of her, nor a greater enemy to her, hereafter, than she now is; nor can England derive less advantages from her than at present. Why, then, is ruin to follow in the best state of the case, and not in the worst? And, if not in the worst, why is it to follow at all? That a nation is to be ruined by peace and commerce, and fourteen or fifteen millions a year less expenses than before, is a new doctrine in politics. We have heard much clamor of na tional savings and economy ; but surely the true economy would be to save the whole charge of a silly, foolish, and headstrong war; because, compared with this, all other retrenchments are baubles and trifles. But is it possible that Lord Shelburne can be serious in sup posing the least advantage can be obtained by arms, or that any advantage can be equal to the expense or the danger of attempt ing it? Will not the capture of one army after another satisfy him ; must all become prisoners? Must England ever be the sport of hope and the victim of delusion? Sometimes our currency was to fail ; another time our army was to disband ; then whole prov inces were to revolt. And thus, from year to year, has every straw been catched at, and every will-with-a-wisp led them a new dance. This year a still new folly is to take place. Lord Shelburne 234 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES wishes to be sent to Congress, and he thinks that something may be done. Are not the repeated declarations of Congress, and which all America supports, that they will not even hear any proposals whatever until the unconditional and unequivocal independence of America is recognized ; are not, I say, these declarations an swer enough? But for England to receive anything from America now, after so many insults, injuries, and outrages acted toward us, would show such a spirit of meanness in her that we could not but despise her for accepting it. And so far from Lord Shel burne coming here to solicit it, it would be the greatest disgrace we could do them to offer it. England would appear a wretch indeed, at this time of day, to ask or owe anything to the bounty of America. Has not the name of Englishman blots enough upon it without inventing more? Even Lucifer would scorn to reign in heaven by per mission, and yet an Englishman can creep for only an entrance into America. Or, has a land of liberty so many charms that to be a doorkeeper in it is better than to be an English minister of state? But what can this expected something be? Or, if obtained, what can it amount to but new disgraces, contentions, and quar rels? The people of America have for years accustomed themselves to think and speak freely and contemptuously of English au thority, and the inveteracy is so deeply rooted that a person invested with any authority from that country and attempting to exercise it here would have the life of a toad under a harrow. They would look upon him as an interloper to whom their compassion permitted a residence. He would be no more than the Mungo of a farce; and, if he disliked that, he must set off. It would be a station of degradation, debased by our pity and despised by our pride, and would place England in a more con temptible situation than any she has yet suffered by the war. We have too high an opinion of ourselves ever to think of yielding again the least obedience to outlandish authority ; and, for a thousand reasons, England would be the last country in the world to yield it to. She has been treacherous, and we know it. Her character is gone, and we have seen the funeral. Surely she loves to fish in troubled waters and drink the cup of contention, or she would not now think of mingling her af fairs with those of America. It would be like a foolish dotard taking to his arms the bride that despises him, or who placed REVOLUTION OR REBELLION? 235 on his head the ensigns of her disgust. It is kissing the hand that boxes his ears and proposes to renew the exchange. The thought is as servile as the war is wicked and shows the last scene of the drama as inconsistent as the first. As America is gone, the only act of manhood is to let her go. Your Lordship had no hand in the separation and you will gain no honor by temporizing politics. Besides, there is something so exceedingly whimsical, unsteady, and even insincere in the pres ent conduct of England that she exhibits herself in the most dishonorable colors. On the second of August last General Carlton and Admiral Digby wrote to General Washington in these words : "The resolution of the House of Commons of the twenty- seventh of February last has been placed in Your Excellency's hands, and intimations given at the same time that further pacific measures were likely to follow. Since which, until the present time, we have had no direct communications from Eng land ; but a mail is now arrived which brings us very important information. We are acquainted, sir, by authority, that nego tiations for a general peace have already commenced at Paris, and that Mr. Grenville is invested with full, powers to treat with all the parties at war, and is now at Paris in the execution of his commission. "And we are further, sir, made acquainted that Eis Majesty, in order to remove any obstacles to that peace which he so ar dently wishes to restore, has commanded his ministers to direct Mr. Grenville that the independence of the Thirteen United Provinces should be proposed by him in the first instance, instead of making it a condition of a general treaty." Now, taking your present measures into view and comparing them with the declaration in this letter, pray, what is the word of your King, or his ministers, or the Parliament good for? Must we not look upon you as a confederated body of faithless, treacherous men, whose assurances were fraud and their lan guage deceit? What opinion can we possibly form of you, but that you are a lost, abandoned, profligate nation, who sport even with your ovm character, and to be held by nothing but the bayonet or the halter? To say, after this, that the sun of Great Britain will be set whenever she acknowledges the independence of America, when the not doing it is the unqualified lie of government, can be no other than the language of ridicule, the jargon of inconsistency. There were thousands in America who predicted the delusion, and looked upon it as a trick of treachery, to take us from our 236 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES guard, and draw off our attention from the only system of finance by which we can be called, or deserve to be called, a sovereign, independent people. The fraud, on your part, might be worth attempting, but the sacrifice to obtain it is too high. There are others who credited the assurance because they thought it impossible that men who had their characters to establish would begin it with a lie. The prosecution of the war by the former ministry was savage and horrid, since which it has been mean, trickish, and delusive. The one went greedily into the passion of revenge, the other into the subtleties of low con trivances ; till, between the crimes of both, there is scarcely left a man in America, be he Whig or Tory, who does not despise or detest the conduct of Britain. The management of Lord Shelburne, whatever may be his views, is a caution to us, and must be to the world, never to regard British assurances. A perfidy so notorious cannot be hid. It stands, even in the public papers of New York, with the names of Carlton and Digby affixed to it. It is a proclamation that the King of England is not to be believed; that the spirit of lying is the governing principle of the ministry. It is hold ing up the character of the House of Commons to public infamy, and warning all men not to credit them. Such are the conse quences which Lord Shelburne 's management has brought upon his country. After the authorized declarations contained in Carlton and Digby 's letter you ought, from every motive of honor, policy, and prudence, to have fulfilled them, whatever might have been the event. It was the least atonement you could possibly make to America, and the greatest kindness you could do to yourselves ; for you will save millions by a general peace, and you will lose as many by continuing the war. Common Sense. Philadelphia, October 29, 1782. Parliament's Acknowledgment of American Inde pendence At last the ministry and the King realized that in dependence would have to be explicitly granted, and so agreed to a provisional treaty which should do this. Preliminary treaties between Great Britain and France and Spain were also signed (on January 20, 1783). These and the American treaty were laid before REVOLUTION OR REBELLION? 237 Parliament in February and precipitated a violent de bate, which resulted in forcing Shelburne to resign, and, indeed, a new ministry to be appointed, the Duke of Portland becoming prime minister, and Lord North and Mr. Fox, by an extraordinary coalition, secretaries of state. In April the new administration sent David Hart ley to Paris to complete the treaty. On the 15th of the same month the American Congress ratified the terms. The definitive treaty, differing little from the provi sional, was signed at Paris on September 3, 1783, and was ratified by Congress on January 14, 1784. MAGNA BRITTANNIA; HEE COLONIES REDUCED From the collection in the New York Public Library CHAPTEE IX The Confederation [including text of the articles of coneedekation] Proposed Articles of Confederation by Dr. Benjamin Franklin [Pa.] — ^Re port of Committee on the Confederation — Thomas Jefferson's Notes on the Debate on the Committee's Articles: Principal Speakers, Samuel Chase [Md.], John Adams [Mass.], Benjamin Harrison [Va.], James Wilson [Pa.], Dr. John Witherspoon [N. J.], Dr. Franklin, Dr. Ben jamin Rush [Pa.], and Stephen Hopkins [R. I.] — The Adoption of the Articles — Text of the Articles — Speech of Dr. David Eamsay [S. C] on "Our Independent Constitutions" — Proposal for National Revenue — Oliver Ellsworth [Ct.], James Madison [Va.], and Alexander Hamilton [N. Y.] Frame an Address on Public Revenue: "An Appeal to National Honor" — Gen. Washington's Address to the States on a Stable Govern ment — Failure of the Plan — Congress Proposes a Commercial Treaty with Great Britain — Lord ShefSeld's Speech in Opposition to Treaty: "Observations on the Commerce of the American States" — ^Rejection of Proposal — Ordinance of 1787 Organizing the Northwest Territory — Financial Distress of the States — George Washington on the Failure of the Confederacy. THE need of a definite form of union was early felt, but, owing to the prevalent idea of primary alle giance to the States, was not easily agreed upon. Even before the Declaration of Independence was adopted, Dr. Franklin had, on July 21, 1775, presented to Congress a draft of Articles of Confederation as a plan of colonial union. Though not copied in the Journal of Congress, they remained on file in his hand writing, and had a considerable influence in the for mation of the Articles of Confederation which were afterward adopted. As Jefferson has stated (page 191), on June 11, 1776, Congress appointed a committee to prepare the form of a confederation to be entered into between the colonies. On July 12 the committee made its report. .238 THE CONFEDERATION 239 In the debate which ensued upon the report the prin cipal speakers were: Samuel Chase [Md.], John Adams [Mass.], Benjamin Harrison [Va.], James Wilson [Pa.], Dr. John Witherspoon [N. J.], Dr. Benjamin Franklin [Pa.], Dr. Benjamin Eush [Pa.], and Stephen Hopkins [E.I.]. Jefferson has given the following notes of the debate upon the proposed Articles of Confederation: Debate on the Confederation notes of thomas jefferson On Friday, July 12, the committee appointed to draw the Articles of Confederation reported them, and on the 22d the (House resolved themselves into a committee to take them into consideration. On the 30th and 31st of that month and 1st of the ensuing those articles were debated which determined the proportion, or quota, of money which each State should furnish to the common treasury, and the manner of voting in Congress. The first of these articles was expressed in the original draft in these words: "Art. XI. All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defence or general welfare and allowed by the United States assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several col onies in proportion to the number of inhabitants of every age, sex, and quality, except Indians not paying taxes, in each col ony — a true account of which, distinguishing the white inhabi tants, shall be triennially taken and transmitted to the Assembly of the United States." Mr. Chase moved that the quotas should be fixed, not by the number of inhabitants of every condition, but by that of the "white inhabitants." He admitted that taxation should be al ways in proportion to property; that this was, in theory, the true rule; but that, from a variety of difficulties, it was a rule which could never be adopted in practice. The value of the property in every State could never be estimated justly and equally. Some other measures for the wealth of the State must therefore be devised, some standard referred to, which would be more simple. He considered the number of inhabitants as a tolerably good criterion of property, and that this might always be obtained. He therefore thought it the best mode which we could adopt, with one exception only: he observed that negroes 240 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES are property, and, as such, cannot be distinguished from the lands or personalties held in those States where there are few slaves; that the surplus of profit which a northern farmer is able to lay by, he invests in cattle, horses, etc., whereas a south ern farmer lays out the same surplus in slaves. There is no more reason, therefore, for taxing the southern States on the farmer's head, and on his slave's head, than the northern ones on their farmers' heads and the heads of their cattle; that the method proposed would, therefore, tax the southern States ac cording to their numbers and their wealth conjunctly, while the northern would be taxed on numbers only ; that negroes, in fact, should not be considered as members of the State, more than cattle, and that they have no more interest in it. Me. John Adams observed that the numbers of people are taken, by this article, as an index of the wealth of the State, and not as subjects of taxation ; that, as to this matter, it was of no consequence by what name you called your people, whether by that of freemen or of slaves; that, in some countries, the laboring poor are called freemen, in others they were called slaves; but that the difference as to the State was imaginary only. What matters it whether a landlord, employing ten laborers on his farm, give them annually as much money as will buy them the necessaries of life or give them those necessaries at short hand? The ten laborers add as much wealth to the State, increase its exports as much in the one case as the other. Certainly five hundred freemen produce no more profits, no greater surplus for the payment of taxes than five hundred slaves. There fore the State in which are the laborers called freemen should be taxed no more than that in which are those called slaves. Suppose, by an extraordinary operation of nature or of law, one-half the laborers of a State could, in the course of one night, be transformed into slaves ; would the State be made the poorer, or the less able to pay taxes ? That the condition of the laboring poor in most countries — that of the fishermen particularly of the northern States — is as abject as that of slaves. It is the number of laborers which produces the surplus for taxation; and numbers, therefore, indiscriminately, are the fair index to wealth; that it is the use of the word "property" here, and its application to some of the people of the State, which produce the fallacy. How does the southern farmer procure slaves? Either by importation or by purchase from his neighbor. If he imports a slave he adds one to the number of laborers in his country, and, proportionately, to its profits and ability to pay taxes. If he buys from his neighbor it is only a transfer of a laborer from THE CONFEDERATION 241 one farm to another, which does not change the annual produce of the State and therefore should not change its tax; that if a northern farmer works ten laborers on his farm he can, it is true, invest the surplus of ten men's labor in cattle; but so may the southern farmer working ten slaves; that a State of one hundred thousand freemen can maintain no more cattle than one of one hundred thousand slaves. Therefore they have no more of that kind of property. That a slave may, indeed, from the custom of speech, be more properly called the wealth of his master than the free laborer might be called the wealth of his employer ; but, as to the state, both were equally its wealth and should therefore equally add to the quota of its tax. Mr. Harrison proposed, as a compromise, that two slaves should be counted as one freeman. He affirmed that slaves did not do as much work as freemen and doubted if two effected more than one ; that this was proved by the price of labor — the hire of a laborer in the southern colonies being from £8 to £12, while in the northern it was generally £24. Me. Wilson said that, if this amendment should take place, the southern colonies would have all the benefit of slaves, while the northern ones would bear the burden; that slaves increase the profits of a State, which the southern States mean to take to themselves ; that they also increase the burden of defence, which would, of course, fall so much the heavier on the northern ; that slaves occupy the places of freemen and eat their food. Dismiss your slaves and freemen will take their places. It is our duty to lay every discouragement on the importation of slaves; but this amendment would give the jus trium liber or um to him who would import slaves; that other kinds of property were pretty equally distributed through all the colonies — there were as many cattle, horses, and sheep in the north as the south, and south as the north, but not so as to slaves — that experience has shown that those colonies have been always able to pay most which have the most inhabitants, whether they be black or white ; and the practice of the southern colonies has always been to make every farmer pay poll taxes upon all his laborers, whether they be black or white. He acknowledges, indeed, that freemen work the most ; but they consume the most also. They do not produce a greater surplus for taxation. The slave is neither fed nor clothed so expensively as a freeman. Again, white women are exempted from labor generally, but negro women are not. In this, then, the southern States have an advantage as the article now stands. It has sometimes been said that slavery is neces sary, because the commodities they raise would be too dear for 242 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES market if cultivated by freemen; but now it is said that the labor of the slave is the dearest. Mr. Payne urged the original resolution of Congress to pro portion the quotas of the States to the number of souls. De. Witherspoon was of opinion that the value of lands and houses was the best estimate of the wealth of a nation, and that it was practicable to obtain such a valuation. This is the true barometer of wealth. The one now proposed is imperfect in itself and unequal between the States. It has been objected that negroes eat the food of freemen and therefore should be taxed: horses also eat the food of freemen; therefore they also should be taxed. It has been said, too, that, in carrying slaves into the estimate of the taxes the State is to pay, we do no more than those States themselves do who always take slaves into the estimate of the taxes the individual is to pay. But the cases are not parallel. In the southern colonies slaves pervade the whole colony ; but they do not pervade the whole continent. That, as to the original resolution of Congress, to proportion the quotas according to the souls it was temporary only and related to the moneys heretofore emitted; whereas we are now entering into a new compact and therefore stand on original ground. The question being put on August 1, the amendment proposed was rejected by the votes of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Ehode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, against those of Dela ware, Maryland, Virginia, North and South Carolina. Georgia was divided. The other article was in these words : ' ' Art. XVII : In determining questions, each colony shall have one vote." July 30, 31, August 1. — Present forty-one members. Me. Chase observed that this article was the most likely to divide us of any one proposed in the draft then under consideration. That the larger colonies had threatened they would not confederate at all if their weight in Congress should not be equal to the numbers of people they added to the confederacy; while the smaller ones declared against a union if they did not retain an equal vote for the protection of their rights. That it was of the utmost consequence to bring the parties together, as, should we sever from each other, either no foreign power will ally with us at all or the different States will form different alliances and thus increase the horrors of those scenes of civil war and blood- THE CONFEDERATION 243 shed which, in such a state of separation and independence, would render us a miserable people. That our importance, our interests, our peace, required that we should confederate, and that mutual sacrifices should be made to effect a compromise of this difficult question. He was of opinion the smaller colonies would lose their rights if they were not in some instances al lowed an equal vote, and, therefore, that a discrimination should take place among the questions which would come before Con gress. That the smaller States should be secured in all questions concerning life or liberty, and the greater ones in all respecting property. He therefore proposed that, in votes relating to money, the voice of each colony should be proportioned to the number of its inhabitants. Dr. Franexin thought that the votes should be so propor tioned in all cases. He took notice that the Delaware counties had bound up their delegates to disagree to this article. He thought it very extraordinary language to be held by any State that they would not confederate with us unless we would let them dispose of our money. Certainly, if we vote equally, we ought to pay equally ; but the smaller States will hardly purchase the privilege at this price. That, had he lived in a State where the representation, originally equal, had become unequal by time and accident, he might have submitted rather than disturb government; but that we should be very wrong to set out in this practice when it is in our power to establish what is right. That at the time of the union between England and Scotland the latter had made the objection which the smaller States now do, but experience had proved that no unfairness had ever been shown them; that their advocates had prognosticated that it would again happen, as in times of old, that the whale would swallow Jonah ; but he thought the prediction reversed in event and that Jonah had swallowed the whale; for the Scotch had, in fact, got possession of the government and gave laws to the English. He reprobated the original agreement of Congress to vote by colonies, and, therefore, was for their voting, in all cases, according to the number of taxables. Dr. Witherspoon opposed every alteration of the article. Ail men admit that a confederacy is necessary. Should the idea get abroad that there is likely to be no union among us it will damp the minds of the people, diminish the glory of our struggle, and lessen its importance ; because it will open to our view future prospects of war and dissension among ourselves. If an equal vote be refused the smaller States will become vassals to the larger, and all experience has shown that the vassals and subjects 244 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES of free states are the most enslaved. He instanced the helots of Sparta and the provinces of Rome. He observed that foreign powers, discovering this blemish, would make it a handle for disengaging the smaller States from so unequal a confederacy. That the colonies should, in fact, be considered as individuals; and that, as such, in all disputes they should have an equal vote ; that they are now collected as individuals making a bargain with each other, and, of course, had a right to vote as individuals. That in the East India Company they voted by persons and not by their proportion of stock. That the Belgie confederacy voted by provinces. That in questions of war the smaller States were as much interested as the larger and therefore should vote equally; and, indeed, that the larger States were more likely to bring war on the confederacy in proportion as their frontier was more extensive. He admitted that equality of representa tion was an excellent principle, but then it must be of things which are coordinate, that is, of things similar and of the same nature; that nothing relating to individuals could ever come before Congress; nothing but what would respect colonies. He distinguished between an incorporating and a federal union. The union of England was an incorporating one; yet Scotland had suffered by that union : for that its inhabitants were drawn from it by the hopes of places and employments; nor was it an instance of equality of representation, because, while Scot land was allowed nearly a thirteenth of representation, they were to pay only one-fortieth of the land tax. He expressed his hopes that in the present enlightened state of men's minds we might expect a lasting confederacy if it was founded on fair principles. John Adams advocated the voting in proportion to numbers. He said that we stand here as the representatives of the people ; that in some States the people are many, in others they are few ; that, therefore, their vote here should be proportioned to the numbers from whom it comes. Reason, justice, and equity never had weight enough on the face of the earth to govern the coun cils of men. It is interest alone which does it and it is interest alone which can be trusted ; that, therefore, the interests within doors should be the mathematical representatives of the inter ests without doors; that the individuality of the colonies is a mere sound. Does the individuality of a colony increase its wealth or numbers? If it does, pay equally. If it does not add weight in the scale of the confederacy, it cannot add to their rights nor weigh in argument. A has £50, B £500, C £1,000 in partnership. Is it just they should equally dispose of the moneys THE CONFEDERATION 245 of the partnership? It has been said we are independent indi viduals making a bargain together. The question is not what we are now, but what we ought to be when our bargain shall be made. The confederacy is to make us one individual only ; it is to form us, like separate parcels of metal, into one common mass. We shall no longer retain our separate individuality, but become a single individual as to all questions submitted to the confed eracy. Therefore all those reasons which prove the justice and expediency of equal representation in other assemblies hold good here. It has been objected that a proportional vote will endanger the smaller States. We answer that an equal vote will endanger the larger. Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Massa chusetts are the three greater colonies. Consider their distance, their difference of produce, of interests, and of manners, and it is apparent they can never have an interest or inclination to combine for the oppression of the smaller ; that the smaller will naturally divide on all questions with the larger. Rhode Island, from its relation, similarity, and intercourse, will generally pur sue the same objects with Massachusetts; Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland, with Pennsylvania. De. Rush took notice that the decay of the liberties of the Dutch republic proceeded from three causes : 1. the perfect unan imity requisite on all occasions; 2. their obligation to consult their constituents; 3. their voting by provinces. This last de stroyed the equality of representation ; and the liberties of Great Britain, also, are sinking from the same defect. That a part of our rights is deposited in the hands of our legislatures. There, it was admitted, there should be an equality of representation. Another part of our rights is deposited in the hands of Congress. Why is it not equally necessary there should be an equal repre sentation there? Were it possible to collect the whole body of the people together they would determine the questions submitted to them by their majority. Why should not the same majority decide when voting here by their representatives? The larger colonies are so providentially divided in situation as to render every fear of their combining visionary. Their interests are dif ferent and their circumstances dissimilar. It is more probable they will become rivals and leave it in the power of the smaller States to give preponderance to any scale they please. The vot ing by the number of free inhabitants will have one excellent effect — ^that of inducing the colonies to discourage slavery and to encourage the increase of their free inhabitants. Me. Hopkins observed there were four larger, four smaller, and four middle sized colonies. That the four largest would con- 246 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES tain more than half the inhabitants of the confederating States, and, therefore, would govern the others as they should please. That history affords no instance of such a thing as equal repre sentation. The Germanic body votes by states; the Helvetic body does the same ; and so does the Belgie confederacy. That too little is known of the ancient confederations to say what was their practice. Me. Wilson thought that taxation should be in proportion to wealth, but that representation should accord with the number of freemen. That government is a collection or result of the wills of all; that if any government could speak the will of all it would be perfect; and that, so far as it departs from this, it becomes imperfect. It has been said that Congress is a repre sentation of States, not of individuals. I say that the objects of its care are all the individuals of the States. It is strange that annexing the name of "state" to ten thousand men should give them an equal right with forty thousand. This must be the effect of magic not of reason. As to those matters which are referred to Congress, we are not so many States ; we are one large state. We lay aside our individuality whenever we come here. The Germanic body is a burlesque on government, and their practice on any point is a sufficient authority and proof that it is wrong. The greatest imperfection in the constitution of the Belgie confederacy is their voting by provinces. The interest of the whole is constantly sacrificed to that of the small states. The history of the war in the reign of Queen Anne sufficiently proves this. It is asked : Shall nine colonies put it into the power of four to govern them as they please? I invert the question and ask: Shall two millions of people put it into the power of one million to govern them as they please ? It is pretended, too, that the smaller colonies will be in danger from the greater. Speak in honest language and say : the minority will be in danger from the majority. And is there an assembly on earth where this danger may not be equally pretended? The truth is that our proceedings will then be consentaneous with the interests of the majority, and so they ought to be. The probability is much greater that the larger States will disagree than that they will combine. I defy the wit of man to invent a possible case, or to suggest any one thing on earth, which shall be for the in terests of Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts, and which will not also be for the interests of the other States. The Articles of Confederation were debated from day to day, and time to time, for two years. On Novem- THE CONFEDERATION 247 ber 17, 1777, Congress, then in session at York, Pa., sent copies of the plan of Confederation to the legislatures of the States, and urged their early action upon it, say ing: "More than any other consideration it will confound our foreign enemies, defeat the flagitious practices of the disaffected, strengthen and confirm our friends, support our public credit, restore the value of our money, enable us to maintain our fleets and armies, and add weight and respect to our councils at home and to our treaties abroad. "In short, this salutary measure can no longer be deferred. it seems essential to our very existence as a free people; and, without it, we may soon be constrained to bid adieu to independ ence, to liberty, and safety — blessings which, from the justice of our cause, and the favor of our Almighty Creator visibly manifested in our protection, we have reason to expect, if, in an humble dependence on His divine providence, we strenuously exert the means which are placed in our power.' The Articles were ratified on July 9, 1778, by eight States; but the ratifications were not completed until January 30, 1781, when Maryland, the last State to give her assent, empowered her delegates to subscribe and ratify the Articles. Congress assembled on the 2d of March under the new powers. The following is the text of the Articles: THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION To All to Whom These Presents Shall Come, We, the undersigned, Delegates of the States affixed to our names, send greeting: Wheeeas the delegates of the United States of America in Congress assembled, did, on the fifteenth day of November, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy- seven, and in the second year of the Independence of America, agree to certain Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, between the States^ of New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island, and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, in the words fol lowing, viz. : 'The initial of "States" is not capitalized anywhere in the original. 248 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Is land, and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. Article 1. The style of this confederacy shall be, "The United States of America. ' ' Art. 2. Each State retains its sovereignty, freedom, and in dependence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled. Art. 3. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other for their common defence, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general wel fare; binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to, or attacks made upon, them, or any of them, on ac count of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever. Art. 4. The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friend ship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States — paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice, excepted — shall be en titled to aU privileges and immunities of free citizens in the sev eral States ; and the people of each State shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof, respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State from any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant ; provided, also, that no imposition, duty, or restriction shall be laid by any State on the property of the United States, or either of them. If any person guilty of, or charged with, treason, felony, or other high misdemeanor in any State shall flee from justice and be found in any of the United States, he shall, upon demand of the governor or executive power of the State from which he fled, be delivered up and removed to the State having jurisdic tion of his offence. Full faith and credit shall be given in each of these States to the records, acts, and judicial proceedings of the courts and mag istrates of every other State. Art. 5. For the more convenient management of the general interests of the United States, delegates shall be annually ap- THE CONFEDERATION 249 pointed in such manner as the legislature of each State shall direct, to meet in Congress on the first Monday in November, in every year, with a power reserved to each State to recall its dele gates, or any of them, at any time within the year, and to send others in their stead for the remainder of the year. No State shall be represented in Congress by less than two, nor by more than seven members; and no person shall be ca pable of being a delegate for more than three years in any term of six years; nor shall any person, being a delegate, be capable of holding any office under the United States, for which he, or another for his benefit, receives any salary, fees, or emolument of any kind. Each State shall maintain its own delegates in a meeting of the States, and while they act as members of the committee of the States. In determining questions in the United States in Congress assembled, each State shall have one vote. Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be im peached or questioned in any court or place out of Congress; and the members of Congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests and imprisonments during the time of their going to and from, and attendance on. Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace. Art. 6. No State, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or enter into any conference, agreement, al liance, or treaty, with any king, prince, or state ; nor shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the United States, or any of them, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state ; nor shall the United States in Congress assembled, or any of them, grant any title of nobility. No two or more States shall enter into any treaty, confedera tion, or alliance whatever between them without consent of the United States in Congress assembled, specifying accurately the purposes for which the same is to be entered into, and how long it shall continue. No State shall lay any imposts or duties which may interfere with any stipulations in treaties entered into by the United States in Congress assembled with any king, prince, or state, in pursuance of any treaties already proposed by Congress to the courts of France and Spain. No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only as shall be deemed necessary 250 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES by the United States in Congress assembled for the defence of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only as, in the judgment of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defence of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutred, and shall provide and have constantly ready for use in public stores a due number of field-pieces and tents and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition, and camp equipage. No State shall engage in any war without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, unless such State be actu ally invaded by enemies, or shall have received certain advice of a resolution being formed by some nation of Indians to invade such State, and the danger is so imminent as not to admit of a delay till the United States in Congress assembled can be con sulted ; ; nor shall any State grant commissions to any ships or vessels of war, nor letters of marque or reprisal, except it be after a declaration of war by the United States in Congress assembled, and then only against the kingdom or state, and the subjects thereof, against which war has been so declared, and under such regulations as shall be established by the United States in Congress assembled, unless such State be infested by pirates ; in which case, vessels of war may be fitted out for that occasion and kept so long as the danger shall continue, or until the United States in Congress assembled shall determine other wise. Art. 7. When land forces are raised by any State for the common defence, all officers of or under the rank of colonel shall be appointed by the legislature of each State, respectively, by whom such forces shall be raised, or in such manner as such State shall direct; and all vacancies shall be filled up by the State which first made the appointment. Art. 8. All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defence or general warfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several States, in proportion to the value of all land with in each State, granted to or surveyed for any person, as such land, and the buildings and improvements thereon, shall be esti mated, according to such mode as the United States in Congress assembled shall, from time to time, direct and appoint. The taxes for paying that proportion shall be laid and levied by the authority and direction of the legislatures of the several THE CONFEDERATION 251 States within the time agreed upon by the United States in Congress assembled. Art. 9. The United States in Congress assembled shall have the sole and exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war, except in the cases mentioned in the sixth article — of sending and receiving ambassadors — entering into treaties and alliances; provided that no treaty of commerce shall be made whereby the legislative power of the respective States shall be restrained from imposing such imposts and duties on foreigners as their own people are subjected to, or from prohibiting the exportation or importation of any species of goods or commodi ties whatsoever — of establishing rules for deciding, in all cases, what captures, on land or water, shall be legal, and in what man ner prizes taken by land or naval forces in the service of the United States shall be divided or appropriated — of granting let ters of marque and reprisal in times of peace — appointing courts for the trial of piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and establishing courts for receiving and determining finally appeals in all cases of capture ; provided that no member of Con gress shall be appointed a judge of any of the said courts. The United States in Congress assembled shall also be the last resort on appeal in all disputes and differences now sub sisting, or that hereafter may arise, between two or more States concerning boundary, jurisdiction, or any other cause whatever ; which authority shall always be exercised in the manner follow ing : Whenever the legislative or executive authority, or lawful agent, of any State in controversy with another shall present a petition to Congress stating the matter in question and praying for a hearing, notice thereof shall be given by order of Congress to the legislative or executive authority of the other State in controversy, and a day assigned for the appearance of the par ties by their lawful agents, who shall then be directed to appoint, by joint consent, commissioners or judges to constitute a court for hearing and determining the matter in question ; but if they cannot agree Congress shall name three persons out of each of the United States, and from the list of such persons each party shall alternately strike out one, the petitioners beginning, until the number shall be reduced to thirteen ; and from that number not less than seven nor more than nine names, as Congress shall direct, shall, in the presence of Congress, be drawn out by lot ; and the persons whose names shall be so drawn, or any five of them, shall be commissioners or judges, to hear and finally deter mine the controversy, so always as a major part of the judges, who shall hear the cause, shall agree in the determination ; and, 252 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES if either party shall neglect to attend at the day appointed, without showing reason which Congress shall judge sufficient, or, being present, shall refuse to strike, the Congress shall pro ceed to nominate three persons out of each State, and the secre tary of Congress shall strike in behalf of such party absent or refusing ; and the judgment and sentence of the court, to be ap pointed in the manner before prescribed, shall be final and con clusive; and, if any of the parties shall refuse to submit to the authority of such court, or to appear or defend their claim or cause, the court shall nevertheless proceed to pronounce sentence or judgment, which shall, in like manner, be final and decisive — the judgment or sentence, and other proceedings, being in either case transmitted to Congress, and lodged among the acts of Congress for the security of the parties concerned ; provided that every commissioner, before he sits in judgment, shall take an oath, to be administered by one of the judges of the supreme or superior court of the State where the cause shall be tried, "well and truly to hear and determine the matter -in question, accord ing to the best of his judgment, without favor, affection, or hope of reward": provided, also, that no State shall be deprived of territory for the benefit of the United States. All controversies concerning the private right of soil, claimed under different grants of two or more States, whose jurisdiction, as they may respect such lands, and the States which passed such grants, are adjusted, the said grants, or either of them, being at the same time claimed to have originated antecedent to such set tlement of jurisdiction, shall, on the petition of either party to the Congress of the United States, be finally determined, as near as may be, in the same manner as is before prescribed for decid ing disputes respecting territorial jurisdiction between different States. The United States in Congress assembled shall also have the sole and exclusive right and power of regulating the alloy and value of coin struck by their own authority, or by that of the respective States; fixing the standard of weights and measures throughout the United States; regulating the trade and manag ing all affairs with the Indians not members of any of the States, provided that the legislative right of any State within its own limits be not infringed or violated ; establishing and regulating post-offices from one State to another throughout all the United States, and exacting such postage on the papers passing through the same as may be requisite to defray the expenses of the said office; appointing all officers of the land forces in the service of the United States, excepting regimental officers; appointing THE CONFEDERATION 253 all the officers of the naval forces, and commissioning all officers whatever in the service of the United States ; making rules for the government and regulation of the said land and naval forces, and directing their operations. The United States in Congress assembled shall have authority to appoint a committee to sit in the recess of Congress, to be de nominated "a committee of the States," and to consist of one delegate from each State ; and to appoint such other committees and civil officers as may be necessary for managing the general affairs of the United States under their direction — to appoint one of their number to preside, provided that no person be allowed to serve in the office of president more than one year in any term of three years — to ascertain the necessary sums of money to be raised for the service of the United States, and to appropriate and apply the same for defraying the public expenses — ^to bor row money or emit biUs on the credit of the United States, trans mitting, every half year, to the respective States an account of the sums of money so borrowed or emitted — to build and equip a navy — to agree upon the number of land forces, and to make requisition from each State for its quota, in proportion to the number of white inhabitants in such State; which requisitions shall be binding; and thereupon the legislature of each State shall appoint the regimental officers, raise the men, and clothe, arm, and equip them in a soldier-like manner, at the expense of the United States; and the officers and men so clothed, armed, and equipped shall march to the place appointed, and within the time agreed on by the United States in Congress assembled : but, if the United States in Congress assembled shall, on con sideration of circumstances, judge proper that any State should not raise men, or should raise a smaller number than its quota, and that any other State should raise a greater number of men than the quota thereof, such extra number shall be raised, offi cered, clothed, armed, and equipped in the same manner as the quota of such State, unless the legislature of such State shall judge that such extra number cannot be safely spared out of the same; in which case they shall raise, officer, clothe, arm, and equip as many of such extra number as they judge can be safely spared. And the officers and men so clothed, armed, and equipped shall march to the place appointed and within the time agreed on by the United States in Congress assembled. The United States in Congress assembled shall never engage in a war; nor grant letters of marque and reprisal in tune of peace ; nor enter into any treaties or alliances ; nor coin money ; nor regulate the value thereof; nor ascertain the sums and ex- 254 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES penses necessary for the defence and welfare of the United States, or any of them; nor emit bills; nor borrow money on the credit of the United States; nor appropriate money; nor agree upon the number of vessels of war to be built or pur chased, or the number of land or sea forces to be raised; nor appoint a commander-in-chief of the army or navy — unless nine States assent to the same; nor shall a question on any other point, except for adjourning from day to day, be determined unless by the votes of a majority of the United States in Congress assembled. The Congress of the United States shall have power to ad journ to any time within the year, and to any place within the United States, so that no period of adjournment be for a longer duration than the space of six months; and shall publish the journal of their proceedings monthly, except such parts thereof relating to treaties, alliances, or military operations as, in their judgment, require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the dele gates of each State on any question shall be entered on the jour nal when it is desired by any delegate; and the delegates of a State, or any of them, at his or their request, shall be furnished with a transcript of the said journal, except such parts as are above excepted, to lay before the legislatures of the several States. Art. 10. The committee of the States, or any nine of them, shall be authorized to execute, in the recess of Congress, such of the powers of Congress as the United States in Congress as sembled, by the consent of nine States, shall, from time to time, think expedient to vest them with, provided that no power be delegated to the said committee for the exercise of which, by the Articles of Confederation, the voice of nine States in the Congress of the United States assembled is requisite. Art. 11. Canada, acceding to this Confederation, and joining jxi the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to, all the advantages of this union ; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same unless such admission be agreed to by nine States. Art. 12. All bills of credit emitted, moneys borrowed, and debts contracted, by or under the authority of Congress, before the assembling of the United States in pursuance of the present Confederation, shall be deemed and considered as a charge against the United States, for payment and satisfaction whereof the said United States, and the public faith, are hereby solemnly pledged. Art. 13. Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which, THE CONFEDERATION 255 by this Confederation, are submitted to them. And the articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them, unless such altera tion be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterward confirmed by the legislature of every State. RATIFICATION And whereas it has pleased the Great Governor of the world to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress to approve of and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union : Enow ye, That we, the undersigned delegates, by virtue of the power and author ity to us given for that purpose, do, by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, and all and singular the matters and things therein contained ; and we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents that they shall abide by the determinations of the United States in Congress assembled on all questions which by the said Confedera tion are submitted to them, and that the articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent; and that the union shall be perpetual. In vdtness whereof, we have hereunto set our hands, in Con gress. Done at Philadelphia, in the State of Pennsylvania, the ninth day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-eight, and in the third year of the Inde pendence of America. On July 4, 1778, Dr. David Eamsay delivered at Charleston, S. C, an eloquent and scholarly oration, in which he dwelt particularly upon the advantages which would result to the States from their recent adoption of new constitutions, and the confederacy which they had adopted to maintain their common independence. It was afterward published with a dedication to Gov ernor Christopher Gadsden as one who, "fearless of danger, undaunted by opposition, uninfluenced by the hope of reward, in the worst of times, has stood among the foremost, an early, active, zealous, disinterested champion in the cause of American Liberty and Inde pendence." 256 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES Owing to its revelation of the light in which the ques tion of sovereignty was viewed by one who was born and educated in the North, where also he was engaged in his profession, and who had entered into both pro fessional and political activities in the South, the oration is a most significant document in its bearing upon the State Eights issue. The following text of the speech is but a small por tion of the address, since only those extracts are pre sented which bear upon constitutional matters. Our Independent Constitutions dr. david ramsay We are the first people in the world who have had it in their power to choose their own form of government. Con stitutions were forced on all other nations by the will of their conquerors, or they were formed by accident, caprice, or the overbearing influence of prevailing parties or particular per sons. But, happily for us, the bands of British Government were dissolved at a time when no rank above that of freemen existed among us, and when we were in a capacity to choose for ourselves among the various forms of government, and to adopt that which best suited our country and people. Our deliberations on this occasion were not directed by the over grown authority of a conquering general, or the ambition of an aspiring nobility, but by the pole star of public good, inducing us to prefer those forms that would most effectually secure the greatest portion of political happiness to the greatest number of people. We had the example of all ages for our instruction, and many among us were well acquainted with the causes of prosperity and misery in other governments. In times of public tranquillity, the mighty have been too apt to encroach on the rights of the many, but it is the great happi ness of America that her independent constitutions were agreed upon by common consent at a time when her leading men needed the utmost support of the multitude, and there fore could have no other object in view but the formation of such constitutions as would best suit the people at large, and unite them most heartily in repelling common dangers. As the strength of a people consists in their numbers, our separate States, sensible of their weakness, were actually ex cited by self-interest to form such free governments as would THE CONFEDERATION 257 encourage the greatest influx of inhabitants. In this manner an emulation has virtually taken place in all the thirteen States, each contending with the others who should form the freest constitution. Thus independence has been the fruit ful parent of governments formed on equal principles, more favorable to the liberty and happiness of the governed than any that have yet been recorded in the annals of history. Our independent constitutions, formed on the justest prin ciples, promise fair to give the most perfect protection to life, liberty, and property, equally to the poor and the rich. As at the conflagration of Corinth, the various melted metals running together formed a new one called Corinthian brass, which was superior to any of its component parts; in like manner, perhaps, it is the will of Heaven that a new empire should be here formed of the different nations of the old world which will rise superior to all that have gone before it and extend human happiness to its utmost possible limits. None can tell to what perfection the arts of government may be brought. May we not therefore expect great things from the patriots of this generation, jointly cooperating to make the new-born Republic of America as complete as possible? Is it not to be hoped that human nature will here receive her most finished touches? That the arts and sciences will be extended and improved? That religion, learning, and liberty will be diffused over this continent? and, in short, that the American editions of the human mind will be more perfect than any that have yet appeared? Great things have been achieved in the infancy of states; and the ardor of a new people rising to empire and renown with prospects that tend to elevate the human soul encourages these flattering expec tations. Should any puny politician object that all these prospects are visionary, till we are certain of independence, I reply that we have been in possession of it for two years and are daily more able to support it, and our enemies less able to overset it. When we first dared to contend with Britain we were a loose, disjointed people under no other government but that of a well-regulated mob. If, in these circumstances we were able to defend ourselves, what may we not expect when we can draw forth our whole strength in a regular constitutional manner ? If the maiden courage of our new levies has success fully withstood the well-trained bands of our enemies, can we distrust when three campaigns have made them equal in 258 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES discipline with those with whom they are to contend? Such is the situation of Britain that, were we only able to keep up the appearance of an army, she could not afford to protract the war. But, instead of this, our troops are more numerous, better disciplined, clothed, and armed than they ever were. The most timid may dismiss all their doubts since Louis XVI of France, that illustrious protector of the rights of human nature, with a magnanimity worthy of himself, has guaranteed to us our independence. If Britain could not subdue America when she stood single and alone, how abortive must all her attempts prove when we are aided by the power of the greatest European monarch ? The special interposition of Providence in our behalf makes it impious to disbelieve the final establishment of our heaven- protected independence. Can any one seriously review the beginning, progress, and present state of the war and not see indisputable evidence of an overruling influence on the minds of men preparing the way for the accomplishment of this great event? As all the tops of corn in a waving field are inclined in one direction by a gust of wind, in like manner the Governor of the World has given one and the same universal bent of inclination to the whole body of our people. Is it a work of man that thirteen States, frequently quarreling about boun daries, clashing in interests, differing in policy, manners, customs, forms of government, and religion, scattered over an extensive continent, under the influence of a variety of local prejudices, jealousies, and aversions, should all harmoniously agree, as if one mighty mind inspired the whole? Our enemies seemed confident of the impossibility of our union; our friends doubted it, and all indifferent persons who judged of things present by what has heretofore happened considered the expectation thereof as romantic; but He who sitteth at the helm of the universe, and who boweth the hearts of a whole nation as the heart of one man, for the accomplish ment of His own purposes, has effected that which to human wisdom and foresight seemed impossible. A review of the history of America, from its first discovery to the present day, forces upon us a belief that greater blessings are reserved for this continent than she ever could have possessed while lying low at the foot of an European island. We have laid the foundations of a new empire which promises to enlarge itself to vast dimensions and to give THE CONFEDERATION 259 happiness to a great continent. It is now our turn to figure on the face of the earth and in the annals of the world. The arts and sciences are planted among us, and, fostered by the auspicious influence of equal governments, are growing up to maturity, while truth and freedom flourish by their sides. Liberty, both civil and religious, in her noontide blaze shines forth with unclouded luster on all ranks and denominations of men. Ever since the Flood true religion, literature, arts, empire, and riches have taken a slow and gradual course from east to west, and are now about fixing their long and favorite abode in this new western world. Our sun of political happiness is already risen, and hath lifted its head over the mountains, illuminating our hemisphere with liberty, light, and polished life. Our independence will redeem one-quarter of the globe from tyranny and oppression and consecrate it to the chosen seat of truth, justice, freedom, learning, and religion. We are laying the foundation of happiness for countless millions. Generations yet unborn will bless us for the blood-bought inheritance we are about to bequeath them. Oh happy times! Oh glorious days! Oh kind, indulgent, bountiful Providence, that we live in this highly favored period, and have the honor of helping forward these great events, and of suffering in a cause of such infinite importance! Proposal foe National Eevenxje One of the first matters which claimed the attention of Congress after the treaty of peace was the restoration of public credit and the establishment of funds for the payment of the debts incurred by the war. Congress turned to customs duties as the most avail able means of securing funds to care for these obliga tions. It had, however, no power to levy a tariff with out the assent of all the States. After much debate, on the 18th of April, 1783, it rec ommended to the States to vest Congress with power to levy certain specified duties on spirits, wines, teas, pep per, sugar, molasses, cocoa, and coffee, and a flat duty of five per cent, ad valorem on all other imported goods. These duties were to be applied solely to the payment of the interest and principal of the public debt, and for 260 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES that purpose they were to continue twenty-five years ; the collectors to be chosen by the States, but to be removable by Congress.The States were also required to establish for the same time, and for the same object, substantial and ef fectual revenues of such nature as they should judge con venient; the proportion of each State to be fixed accord ing to the number of white and other free citizens, in cluding those bound to servitude for a term of years, and three-fifths of all other persons. This system was not to take effect until acceded to by every State, and when adopted by all to be a mutual compact among the States, and irrevocable by anyone without the consent of the whole or of a majority of the United States in Congress. To enforce the importance and necessity of adopting and carrying into effect this system of finance, Con gress presented an address to the States. This was pre pared by a committee consisting of Oliver Ellsworth, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton. An Appeal to National Honor by congress After explaining the system itself, the address pre pared for Congress by Ellsworth, Madison, and Hamil ton appealed to the gratitude and pride, as well as jus tice and plighted faith of the nation. It urged particu larly the propriety of the provision recommended for the payment of the national debt. "If other motives than that of justice," it said, "could be requisite, on this occasion, no nation could ever feel stronger ; for to whom are the debts to be paid? To an ally, in the first place, who, to the exertion of his armies in support of our cause, has added the succors of his treasure; who, to his important loans, has added liberal dona tions; and whose loans themselves carry the impression of his magnanimity and friendship. To individuals in a foreign country, in the next place, who were the first to give so precious a token of their confidence in THE CONFEDERATION 261 our justice, and of their friendship for our cause, and who are members of a republic which was second iii espousing our rank among nations. Another class of creditors is that illustrious and patriotic band of fellow citizens, whose blood and whose bravery have defended the liberties of their country, who have patiently borne, among other distresses, the privation of their stipends, while the distresses of their country disabled it from bestow ing them, and who even now ask for no more than such a portion of their dues as will enable them to retire from the field of glory into the bosom of peace and private citizenship, and for such effectual security for the residue of their claims as their country is now unquestionably able to provide. The remaining class of creditors is composed partly of such of our fellow citizens as originally lent to the public the use of their funds, or have since manifested most confidence in their country by receiving transfers from the lenders, and partly of those whose property has been either advanced or assumed for the public service. To discriminate the merits of these several descriptions of creditors would be a task equally unnecessary and invidious. If the voice of humanity plead more loudly in favor of some than of others, the voice of policy, no less than justice, pleads in favor of all. A wise nation will never permit those who relieve the wants of their country, or who rely most on its faith, its firmness, and its resources, when either of them is distrusted, to suffer by the event. Let it be remembered finally that it has ever been the pride and boast of America that the rights for which she contended were the rights of human nature. By the blessing of the author of these rights, or the means exerted for their defence, they have prevailed against all opposition, and form the basis of thirteen independent States. No instance has heretofore occurred, nor can any instance be expected hereafter to occur, in which the unadulterated forms of republican government can pretend to so fair an opportunity of justifying themselves by their fruits. In this view the citizens of the United States are responsible for the greatest trust ever confided to a political society. If justice, good faith, honor, gratitude, and all other qualities which ennoble the character of a nation and fulfill the ends of government be the fruits of our establishments, the cause of liberty will acquire a dignity and luster which it has never yet enjoyed, and an example will be set which 262 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES cannot but have the most favorable infiuence on the rights of mankind. If, on the other side, our government should be unfortu nately blotted with the reverse of these cardinal and essential virtues, the great cause which we have engaged to vindicate will be dishonored and betrayed ; the last and fairest experi ment in favor of the rights of human nature will be turned against them, and their patrons and friends exposed to be insulted and silenced by the votaries of tyranny and usurpa tion. Washington on a Stable Government The propriety and necessity of adopting this system were strongly pressed upon the States by General Wash ington in a circular letter dated June 8, 1783, giving no tice of his intended resignation, and congratulating the States on the happy termination of the war, and on the numerous advantages and blessings which, as a free and independent nation, they had now a right to expect. Having in the course of the war experienced, and at times too fatally experienced, the evils arising from a failure, on the part of the States, to comply with the requisitions of Congress, he reminded them that whether these advantages and blessings would be real ized depended, in a great measure, on themselves, on their prompt and mutual cooperation in promoting the great interests of the Union. He considered four things as essentially necessary to the existence of the United States as an independent power. 1. An indissoluble union of the States under one fed eral head. 2. A sacred regard to justice. 3. The adoption of a proper peace establishment. 4. The prevalence of that pacific and friendly dis position, among the people of the United States, which would induce them to forget their local prejudices and policies, to make those mutual concessions which were requisite to the general prosperity; and, in some in stances, to sacrifice their individual advantages to the interest of the community. THE CONFEDERATION 263 Failure op the Plan This plan, however, though thus ably supported and recommended, was never accepted by the States in such a manner as to go into operation. The pressure of com mon danger being removed, the bond of federal union became weak and feeble, and the inefficiency of the na tional government more apparent. A jealousy between the State and general governments began to exist; and State interests predominated. The importing States levied contributions on their neighbors for their own benefit, and some of them would not relinquish the ad vantages of their local situation. Congress, indeed, had power to make treaties with foreign nations, but none to enforce the observance of them; they had power to contract debts, but were unable to enforce the collection of money for the payment of them. For this they were dependent on the will of thirteen distinct legislative bod ies. That part of the financial plan which required from the States a pledge of internal revenues for twenty-five years met with the greatest opposition. Congress was at length satisfied that a general compliance with this part of the system was not to be expected, and confined its requests to that relating to duties on imports. In 1786 all the States except New York had complied with this part of the system. The operation of the acts passed by some of the States, however, depended on similar acts from the others. The State of New York, instead of vesting Congress with the power of levying the du ties, reserved this right to itself agreeably to a law passed in 1784; and also refused to make the collectors amenable to and removable by Congress. While this system of revenue was under the consid eration of the States, Congress could do nothing more than make requisitions, and, as these were not complied with, the interest of the domestic debt remained unpaid ; and the money borrowed in Europe was applied to the payment of interest on foreign loans. In this situation the domestic debt was deemed of little value, and was sold for about one-tenth of its nominal amount. 264 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES Commercial Negotiations with Great Britain Soon after the ratification of the treaty with Great Britain, Congress turned their attention to the subject of commercial intercourse with that nation. But Great Britain refused to enter into a commercial treaty. Her statesmen could not be persuaded that the Americans would ever be united among themselves, or be able to form any lasting or beneficial engagements with other nations, not only for want of union, but from opposing interests, and from the imperfect powers of their general government. On this subject Lord Shef field no doubt spoke the language of Englishmen in gen eral when he said, in his "Observations on the Com merce of the American States ' ' : It will not be an easy matter to bring the American States to act as a nation; they are not to be feared as such by us. . . . Their climate, their staples, their manners are different; their interests opposite, and that which is beneficial to one is destructive to the other. . . .In short, every circumstance proves that it will be extreme folly to enter into any engagements by which we may not wish to be bound here after. ... No treaty can be made with the American States that can be binding on the whole of them. The act of confederation does not enable Congress to form more than general treaties — at the moment of the highest authority of Congress the power in question was withheld by the several States. No treaty that could be made could suit the different interests. When treaties are necessary, they must be made with the States respectively. Each State has reserved every power relative to imports, exports, prohibitions, duties, etc., to itself. But no treaty at present is necessary. We trade with several very considerable nations without commercial treaties. In accordance with this policy, in July, 1783, the Brit ish Government issued orders in council for regulating the trade between the United States and the British do minions. American vessels thereby were entirely ex cluded from the British West Indies ; and certain articles from the States such as fish, beef, pork, etc., were not allowed to be carried there, even in British bottoms. This prohibition was continued by temporary acts until THE CONFEDERATION 265 1788, when it was permanently established by act of Parliament. Difficulties with Great Britain were not confined to regulations respecting commerce. Serious disputes soon arose concerning the execution of the treaty of peace; and each nation complained of infractions by the other. Congress, in order to remove the difficulties com plained of, in March, 1787, unanimously declared that all the acts, or parts of acts, existing in any of the States, repugnant to the treaty of peace, ought to be repealed; and they recommended to the States to make such repeal by a general law. They at the same time unanimously resolved "that the legislatures of the sev eral States cannot of right pass any act or acts for in terpreting, explaining, or construing a national treaty or any part or clause of it; nor for restraining, limiting, or in any manner impeding, retarding, or contracting the operation and execution of the same ; for that, on be ing constitutionally made, ratified, and published, they become, in virtue of the Confederation, part of the law of the land, and are not only independent of the will and power of such legislatures, but also binding and obliga tory on them." In consequence of these declarations the States hav ing laws against the treaty abolished these, save Vir ginia, which did so provisionally upon Great Britain ful filling her obligations, and South Carolina, which ob served that the subjects of Great Britain had encoun tered no other difficulties, or impediments, in the recov ery of their debts, than had the citizens of America ; that such was the situation of the State the legislature had conceived it necessary to pass laws tantamount to shut ting the courts. The British court was not yet disposed to enter into any commercial treaty with the United States, the min isters being, no doubt, satisfied that the advantages they enjoyed under their own regulations were greater than could be obtained by any treaty they could make with America. 266 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES Organization of the Noeth-West Teeeitoey The people of the United States had viewed the Western lands as a fund to aid in the payment of the national debt. Congress, therefore, in April, 1783, called upon those States who had not yet complied with their former requests on this subject to make liberal cessions of their territorial claims. After a great deal of controversy the States claiming Western lands ceded these to the Federal Government; and Congress, in July, 1787, organized the North- West Territory, composed of the region now occupied by the States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wiscon sin, establishing an ordinance for its government. This ordinance remains the basis of the governments estab lished by Congress in all the Territories of the United States. By it Congress established certain articles of compact, between the original States and the people in the territory, and which were to remain unalterable, un less by common consent. By these no person in the ter ritory was ever to be molested on account of his mode of worship or religious sentiments; and every person was entitled to the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus, trial by jury, and all those other fundamental rights usually inserted in American bills of rights. Schools and the means of education were forever to be encour aged, and the utmost good faith to be observed toward the Indians ; particularly their lands and property were never to be taken from them without their consent. The territory, and the States that might be formed therein, were forever to remain a part of the American confed eracy ; but not less than three nor more than five States were to be established. It was also provided that, whenever in any of those States there should be sixty thousand free inhabitants, such State was to be admitted into the Union, on the same footing with the original States in all respects whatever; and be at liberty to form a permanent con stitution and State government; such constitution and government, however, was to be republican and con formable to the principles of the articles. If consistent THE CONFEDERATION 267 with the general interest of the confederation, such State, however, might be admitted as a member of the Union with a less number than sixty thousand free in habitants. By the last article it was provided there should be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the Terri tory otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, of which the party should have been duly convicted.^ Financial Distress of the States While Congress was thus forming a government for the Territory and laying the foundation of future new States at the west, it had lost all authority over the old States at the east. Many causes combined, at this period, to produce great distress, discontent, and dis affection in different parts of the Union. The General Government, as before stated, was totally inefficient, and the authority of the State governments greatly weak ened, and in some instances almost destroyed. In addition to the debts of the Union, the States in dividually had also incurred large debts during the war, for the payment of which they were called upon by their creditors. Immediately after peace, in consequence of large importations of foreign goods, particularly from Great Britain, large debts were contracted by individu als, and which, from the want of internal as well as ex ternal resources, they were unable to pay. The people were pressed at the same time for the payment of the debts of the Union, of the individual States, and of their own private debts. The courts of justice, which had been shut during the war, were filled with private suits. Under these circumstances, some of the States had re course to the desperate expedient of paper money; others made personal property a tender, at an appraised value, in satisfaction of debts; and, in Massachusetts, not only were the judges in several counties prevented from holding courts, but the Government itself, in other respects, was set at defiance by an open and formidable insurrection of the people (Shay's Eebellion). ^ Nathan Dane, of Massachusetts, was the author of this article. 268 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES Washington on Failure of the Confederacy The enemies of the Eevolution, who had predicted that the Americans, when separated from their parent country, would be unable to govern themselves, but fall into confusion, now secretly rejoiced at the verification of their predictions. Its friends began almost to despair of the commonwealth, and at times were led to doubt whether the people of America were indeed capable of self-government. Some, indeed, suggested that it might be necessary for the country to adopt a monarchical form of government. In reference to this suggestion General Washington said in a letter to John Jay: What astonishing changes a few years are capable of pro ducing! I am told that even respectable characters speak of a monarchical form of government without horror. Prom think ing proceeds speaking, thence to acting is often but a single step. But how irrevocable and tremendous! What a triumph for our enemies to verify their predictions! What a triumph for the advocates of despotism to find that we are incapable of governing ourselves, and that systems founded on the basis of equal liberty are merely ideal and fallacious! Would to God that wise measures may be taken in time to avert the consequences we have but too much reason to apprehend. CHAPTEE X The Constitutional Convention [plans of government] IHrst Proposal of the Constitution — Pelatiah Webster [Pa.] on Defects of the Confederation — Webster's Comparison of the Adopted Constitution with That Which He Had Proposed — George Washington on the Neces sary Change in the Federal Government — Eesolutions of Virginia — Sug gestion of John Jay to Call a Convention to Revise the Articles of Con federation — The Annapolis Convention — It Issues Call for a Constitu tional Convention — New York Legislature Votes upon Alexander Hamil ton's Eesolution to Give Congress Power to Levy Federal Duties on Imports — His Speech: "On Granting Taxing Powers to Congress" — Eesolve of Constitutional Convention to Form an Entirely New Govern ment — Plans of Government by Edmund Eandolph and Charles Pinck ney — Letter of James Madison to Eandolph — The Plans Are Eeferred to a Committee — Its Eesolutions — Plan of William Paterson. THE Articles of Confederation were the result of an old order of what might be called colonial states manship that was admirably adapted to secure the independence of the several States, but was woefully inadequate for the still greater task of welding them into a nation. To save the country from the anarchy into which it had fallen required a new order of what might be called national statesmanship in which the lead was taken by young men and those older persons whose political activities had begun with the movement for national independence. Of the younger men of this or der, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Charles. Pinckney were the most influential in devising plans of government in which the principle of federation was sub ordinated to that of nationality. Of the older representa tives, the most influential was a man with a type of mind new to the country, the politico-economic as distinguished from the purely political, and whose genius, therefore, 269 270 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES was little appreciated and correspondingly unrecognized up to this period — and, indeed, not adequately so until 1911, when probably more than justice was done him by the Hon. Hannis Taylor in his ' ' The Origin and Growth of the American Constitution. ' ' This was Pelatiah Web ster, to whom Mr. Taylor ascribes the entire merit of "inventing" the plan of the Constitution, and whose book presenting the invention he styles ' ' the epoch-mak ing achievement," which "must forever stand forth as a beacon light in the world's political history." In October, 1776, Webster published an essay, in which he strongly urged the laying of a tax to provide for the speedy redemption of the continental bills of credit — a plan, however, which could not be followed owing to the fact that the powers of Congress were only advisory, and not mandatory upon the States. Undoubt edly the failure to adopt his plan, and the consequent disaster to the country, directed Webster's attention to the need of recognizing the Federal Government so that it should have the supreme essential of sovereignty — independent power. Though his succeeding work was in the field of economics — "Essays on Free Trade and Finance" — in one of the seven essays contained in this work he proposed the calling of a "Constitutional Con vention" for making an entirely new Constitution. This essay was published in May, 1781. Two years later (in February, 1783) Webster "humbly offered to the pub lic" an anonymous "Dissertation on the Political Union and Constitution of the Thirteen United States of North America Which Is Necessary to Their Preservation and Happiness," by "a Citizen of Philadelphia." The view of Taylor that the American Constitution was an "invention" is held by many other writers, na tive and foreign, on the subject. Alexis de Tocqueville, in his book ' ' On Democracy in America" (1835), says of the Constitution that it was based "upon a wholly novel theory which may be con sidered a great discovery in modern political science. . . . The American States, which combined in 1789, agreed that the Federal Government should not only dic tate, but should execute its own enactments. In both CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION 271 cases the right is the same, but the exercise of the right is different; and this difference produced the most mo mentous consequences." And William E. Gladstone said in the same tenor: "As the British Constitution is the most subtile organ ism which has proceeded from progressive history, so the American Constitution is the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of a man." Other American historians and students of the origin of the Constitution do not view the plan of the Consti tution so much of an "invention" as an almost neces sary and even obvious development of the conditions of the time, one which arose naturally in the minds of all the constructive (as opposed to initiative) minds which set themselves freshly at work upon the problem. Thus George Ticknor Curtis, in his "History of the Origin, Formation, and Adoption of the Constitution" (1854), says: "The Constitution of the United States was emi nently the creature of circumstances — not of circum stances blindly leading the blind to an unconscious sub mission to an accident, but of circumstances which offered an intelligent choice of the means of happiness, and opened, from the experience of the past, the plain path of duty and success stretching onward to the fu ture. ' ' According to this view Webster's plan of the Con stitution was simply a formulation of the ideas which were "in the air" during the period, being generated all over the country by the formation of the State con stitutions and applied from these to the obviously needed new Federal Constitution by such constructive minds as James Madison of Virginia, Charles Pinckney of South Carolina, and Alexander Hamilton of New York. Never theless Webster is certainly entitled to the credit of pre senting the plan first, and in a thoroughly elaborated form. In a note upon his "Dissertation," published in his collected writings (1791), Webster tells how he came to write the work. It was, he said, because of the failure of the Confederation. 272 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES Defects of the Confederation pelatiah WEBSTER Forming a plan of confederation or a system of general government of the United States engrossed the attention of Congress from the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776, till the same was completed by Congress, July 9, 1778, and recommended to the several States for ratification, which finally took place March 1, 1781, from which time the said confederation was considered as the grand constitution of the general government, and the whole administration was con formed to it. And as it had stood the test of discussion in Congress for two years before they completed and adopted it, and in all the States for three years more before it was finally ratified one would have thought that it must have been a very finished and perfect plan of government. But on trial of it in practice it was found to be extremely weak, defective, totally inefficient, and altogether inadequate to its great ends and purposes, for 1. It blended the legislative and executive powers together in one body. 2. This body, viz. : Congress, consisted of but one house, without any check upon their resolutions. 3. The powers of Congress in very few instances were definite and final; in the most important articles of govern ment they could do no more than recommend to the several States, the consent of every one of which was necessary to give legal sanction to any act so recommended. 4. They could assess and levy no taxes. 5. They could institute and execute no punishments except in the military department. 6. They had no power of deciding or controlling the con tentions and disputes of different States with each other. 7. They could not regulate the general trade ; or, 8. Even make laws to secure either public treaties with foreign states, or the persons of public ambassadors, or to punish violations or injuries done to either of them. 9. They could institute no general judiciary powers. 10. They could regulate no public roads, canals, or inland navigation, etc., etc., etc. And what caps all the rest was that (while under such an inefiicient political constitution the only chance we had of any tolerable administration lay wholly in the prudence CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION 273 and wisdom of the men who happened to take the lead in our public councils) it was fatally provided by the absurd doctrine of rotation that if any member of Congress by three years' experience and application had qualified himself to manage our public affairs with consistency and fitness, that he should be constitutionally and absolutely rendered incapable of serving any longer, till by three years' discontinuance he had pretty well lost the cue or train of the public counsels and forgot the ideas and plans which made his service useful and im portant, and in the meantime his place should be supplied by a fresh man who had the whole matter to learn, and when he had learned it was to give place to another fresh man, and so on to the end of the chapter. The sensible mind of the United States by long experience of the fatal mischief of anarchy, or (which is about the same thing) of this ridiculous inefficient form of government, began to apprehend that there was something wrong in our policy which ought to be redressed and mended, but nobody under took to delineate the necessary amendments. I was then pretty much at leisure, and was fully of opinion (though the sentiment at that time would not very well bear) that it would be ten times easier to form a new Constitution than to mend the old one. I therefore sat myself down to sketch out the leading principles of that political constitution which I thought necessary to the preservation and happiness of the United States of America, which are comprised in this Dissertation. I hope the reader will please consider that these are the original thoughts of a private individual, dictated by the nature of the subject only, long before the important theme became the great object of discussion in the most dignified and important assembly which ever sat or decided in America. The "Dissertation" is a treatise on the nature of government so sound and searching that, while many of its propositions were not embodied in the Constitution, they all, in one form or another, have arisen as political issues in our national history. Besides the strictly Con stitutional proposals there may be mentioned the fol lowing subjects of interest and importance to the stu dent of politics : Trade a chief concern of Government. Supreme importance of the taxing power. Eetention of efficient officers in the public service 274 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES vs. rotation in office (a point in the discussion of Civil Service). Frequent elections as a check on inefficiency and mis conduct of public officers (a point in the discussion of the Eecall). The value of land, being created by population, as a natural and just standard of determining contributions to public revenue (a point in the discussion of the "Sin gle Tax"). Unsettled lands the common property of the nation. Open and thorough discussions in legislative bodies as a check on the election of knavish wire-pulling poli ticians, and upon hasty and ill-advised legislation. Advantages of two chambers in legislative bodies over one in the above respect. Departments of investigation to give information to Congress as an important feature of government. Amendment, repeal, and new legislation as the proper cure for bad laws (a point in the discussion of the Initiative and Eeferendum). A Chamber of Commerce as an advisory board and bureau of commercial information for the benefit of Con gress (a point in the discussion of matters relative to the Departments of Commerce and Labor, the Consular Service, etc.). Advantages of a dictatorship during war (a point in the discussion of the Suspension of Habeas Corpus Act, and similar issues of Lincoln's administration). Complete control of the purse by the Legislature. Executive departments to be directed by a Council of State. All laws to carry power of enforcing them (Su premacy of Federal Legislation over State). Coercion of a State by the Federal Government for the national welfare (a point in the discussion of Se cession). The strictly constitutional propositions of Webster may be inferred from a comparison which he instituted between them and the Constitution which was adopted. This he published in 1791 in his complete works. For the full text of the "Dissertation" see Appendix XI in CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION 275 Hannis Taylor's "Origin and Growth of the American Constitution. ' ' Comparison of the Adopted Constitution with That Proposed by Webster At the time when this Dissertation was written (February 16, 1783) the defects and insufficiency of the Old Federal Constitution were universally felt and acknowledged. It was manifest, not only that the internal policy, justice, security, and peace of the States could never be preserved under it, but the finances and public credit would necessarily become so embarrassed, precarious, and void of support that no public movement which depended on the revenue could be managed with any effectual certainty; but though the public mind was under full conviction of all these mischiefs and was contemplat ing a remedy, yet the public ideas were not at all concentrated, much less arranged into any new system or form of govern ment which would obviate these evils. Under these circum stances I offered this Dissertation to the public. How far the principles of it were adopted or rejected in the new Constitu tion, which was four years afterwards (September 17, 1787) formed by the general convention and since ratified by all the States, is obvious to every one. I wish here to remark the great particulars of my plan which were rejected by the convention. 1. My plan was to keep the legislative and executive de partments entirely distinct; the one to consist of the two Houses of Congress, the other to rest entirely in the Grand Council of State. 2. I proposed to introduce a Chamber of Commerce, to consist of merchants who should be consulted by the legislature in all matters of trade and revenue, and which should have the conducting the revenue committed to them. The first of these the convention qualified; the second they say nothing of, i. e., take no notice of it. 3. I proposed that the great officers of state should have the perusal of all bills before they were enacted into laws, and should be required to give their opinion of them as far as they affected the public interest in their several departments, which report of them Congress should cause to be read in their respective Houses and entered on their minutes. This is passed over without notice. 4. I proposed that all public officers appointed by the 276 GREAT AMERICAN DEBATES executive authority should be amenable both to them and to the legislative power, and removable for just cause by either of them. This is qualified by the convention. And inasmuch as my sentiments in these respects were either qualified or totally neglected by the convention, I suppose they were wrong. However, the whole matter is submitted to the politicians of the present age and to our posterity in future. In sundry other things the convention have gone into minutes, e. g., respecting elections of presidents, senators and representatives in Congress, etc., which I proposed to leave at large to the wisdom and discretion of Congress and of the several States. Great reasons may doubtless be assigned for their decision, and perhaps some little ones for mine. Time, the great arbiter of all human plans, may, after a while, give his decision; but neither the convention nor myself will probably live to feel either the exultation or mortification of his approbation or disapprobation of either of our plans. But if any of these questions should in future time become objects of discussion, neither the vast dignity of the con vention, nor the low, unnoticed state of myself, will be at all considered in the debates; the merits of the matter and the interests connected with or rising out of it will alone dictate the decision. The Call foe a Convention In 1780, one year before Webster's first proposal of an entirely new Constitution, Alexander Hamilton, then twenty-three years of age, proposed in a letter to James Duane a convention of all the States to revise the Ar ticles of Confederation. In 1782 the legislature of his State, New York, recommended such a convention, and, in 1784, Gen. Washington, in a letter to the Governor of Virginia, urged that a radical change in the Federal Government was necessary. He said : The disinclination of the individual States to yield com petent powers to Congress for the Federal Government, their unreasonable jealousy of that body, and of one another, and the disposition which seems to pervade each, of being all-wise and all-powerful within itself, will, if there is not a change in the system, be our downfall as a nation. This is as clear to me as A, B, C, and I think we have opposed Great Britain, and CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION 277 have arrived at the present state of peace and independency to very little purpose if we\ cannot conquer our own prejudices. The powers of Europe