SERIES FIVE LECTURES FIFTEEN AND SIXTEEN (Part 1) The Revolutionary Era, 1764-1783 15. The Development of Organized Resistance 16. The Northern Campaigns; Foreign Relations and Finances THE UNITED STATES CHAPTER I. 1764. EARLY CAUSES FOR DISPUTE. Rise of the spirit of liberty-England under Pitt-Sacrifices of the colonies during French and Indian War Remarks of Guizot - New policy required for America - Early history of the Navigation Acts - The various acts passed and how they were received by the colonists The Woolen Act - Colonists begin to avoid acts Manufacturing in the colonies restrained — Attempt to set up the Anglican Episcopal system - The Church of England in the colonies-Activities of William Laud and the Bishops of London - The Jonathan Mayhew controversy Pamphlet war between Chandler and Charles Chauncy - Dispute over Writs of Assistance The speech of James Otis. TH HE colonies had now begun to realize their own power, even if the authorities in England had failed to see it. The colonists had become remarkably self-reliant, and the Americans were undoubtedly competent for any emergency which might arise, no matter whether it were of a social, a political or even a military nature.* John Quincy Adams says, "In the bosoms of this people there was burning, kindled at different furnaces, but all furnaces of affliction, one clear, steady flame of Liberty. Bold and daring enterprise, stubborn endurance of privation, un Sydney G. Fisher, The Struggle for American Independence, vol. i., p. 23 (1908). In this connection George E. Howard gives an excellent resumé of conditions existing in America and England at this time - Preliminaries of the Revolution, vol. viii. of the American Nation series, chaps. i.-ii. (Harper & Bros., 1905). -- flinching intrepidity in facing danger, and inflexible adherence to conscientious principle, had steeled to energetic and unyielding hardihood the characters of the primitive settlers of all these colonies. Since that time two or three generations of men had passed away - but they had increased and multiplied with unexampled rapidity; and the land itself had been the recent theatre of a ferocious and bloody seven years' war, between the two most powerful and most civilized nations of Europe, contending for the possession of this continent. In that struggle Great Britain had been the victor. She had conquered the provinces of France. She had expelled her rival totally from the continent over which, bounding herself by the Mississippi, she was thenceforth to hold divided empire only with 202 ENGLAND UNDER PITT; SACRIFICES OF COLONIES. Spain. She had acquired undisputed control over the Indian tribes, still tenanting the forests unexplored by Europeans. She had established an uncontested monopoly of the commerce of all her colonies. But, forgetting all the warnings of preceding ages, forgetting the lessons written in the blood of her own children, through centuries of departed time, she undertook to tax the people of the colonies without their consent." Of course, the only outcome could be either the independence of the colonies or their reduction to a state of absolute slavery, for Parliament attempted to enforce its acts, which aroused the colonists to risk life and liberty in contending for what was even dearer to them than life itself. At this time, England, under the ministry of Pitt, was probably in the height of her power, and had attained renown in military affairs never surpassed in her history. All her enemies had been subdued, she had been victorious in every contest, and was now the acknowledged mistress of the seas superior to every other nation. While this supremacy was gratifying in the extreme, it had not been attained without vast expenditures; and at the end of the war with France, England found herself saddled with a debt which compelled her to tax the people almost beyond their ability to pay. It was only natural, therefore, that the government should look * ** The national debt at this time was approximately £140,000,000, or about $700,000,000. about for new sources of revenue. On The colonies at this time were them- REMARKS OF GUIZOT. rights of free-born Englishmen, but these Parliament was unwilling to grant. Guizot says:* "It is the honorable distinction of England to have given to her colonies, in their infancy, the seminal principle of their liberty. Almost all of them, either at the time of their being planted, or shortly after, received charters which conferred upon the colonists the rights of the mother country. And these charters were not a mere deceptive form, a dead letter, for they either established or recognized those powerful institutions, which impelled the colonists to defend their liberties and to control power by dividing it; such as the laying of taxes by vote, the election of the principal public bodies, trial by jury, and the right to meet and deliberate upon affairs of general interest. Thus the history of these colonies is nothing else than the practical and sedulous development of the spirit of liberty, expanding under the protecting influence of the laws and traditions of the country. Such, indeed, was the history of England itself. In the infancy of the English colonies, three different powers are found, side by side, with their liberties, and consecrated by the same charters,- the crown, the proprietary founders, whether companies or individuals, and the mother country. The crown, by virtue of the monarchical principle and its traditions, derived from the Church and the Empire. The proprietary founders to whom the territory had been granted, by virtue of the feudal principal which attaches a considerable portion of soverignty to the proprietorship of the soil. The mother country, by virtue of the colonial principle, which, at all periods and among all nations, by a natural connection between facts and opinions, has given to the mother country a great influence over the population proceeding from its bosom. "From the very commencement, as well in the course of events as in the charters, there was great confusion among these various powers, by turns exalted or depressed, united or divided, sometimes protecting, one against another, the colonists and their franchises, and sometimes assailing them in concert. In the course of these confused changes, all sorts of pretexts were assumed, and facts of all kinds cited, in justification and support either of their acts or their pretensions. "In the middle of the seventeenth century, * Essay on the Character and Influence of Washington, from the French, pp. 14-24. 203 when the monarchical principle was overthrown in England, in the person of Charles the First, one might be led to suppose, for a moment, that the colonies would take advantage of this to free themselves entirely from its control. In point of fact, some of them, Massachusetts especially, settled by stern Puritans, showed themselves disposed, if not to break every tie which bound them to the mother country, at least to govern themselves, alone, and by their own laws. But the Long Parliament, by force of the colonial principle, and in virtue of the rights of the crown, which it inherited, maintained, with moderation, the supremacy of Great Britain. Cromwell, succeeding to the power of the Long Parliament, exercised it in a more striking manner, and by a judicious and resolute principle of protection, prevented or repressed, in the colonies, both Royalist and Puritan, every faint aspiration for independence. This was to him an easy task. The colonies, at this period, were feeble and divided. Virginia, in 1640, did not contain more than three or four thousand inhabitants, and in 1660 hardly thirty thousand. Maryland had at most only twelve thousand. In these two provinces, the royalist party had the ascendancy, and greeted with joy the Restoration. In Massachusetts, on the other hand, the general feeling was republican; and when the local government was compelled to proclaim Charles the Second as king, they forbade, at the same time, all tumultuous assemblies, all kinds of merry-making and even the drinking of the king's health. There was, at that time, neither the moral unity, nor the physical strength, necessary to the foundation of a state. "After 1688, when England was finally in possession of a free government, the colonies felt but slightly its advantages. The charters, which Charles the Second and James the Second had either taken away or impaired, were but imperfectly and partially restored to them. The same confusion prevailed, the same struggles arose, between the different powers. The greater part of the governors, coming from Europe, temporarily invested with the prerogatives and pretensions of royalty, displayed them with more arrogance than power, in an administration, generally speaking, inconsistent, irritating, seldom successful, frequently marked by grasping selfishness, and a postponement of the interests of the public to petty personal quarrels. Moreover, it was henceforth not the crown alone, but the crown and the mother country united, with which the colonies had to deal. Their real sovereign was no longer the king, but the king and the people of Great |